When a New York City ju-degree judge last sat down on Harvey Weinstein’s sentence, the former enemy studio boss was convicted of rape and sentenced to 23 years in prison.
Five years later, that landmark #MeToo Verdict is gone – wiped out on appeal – and Weinstein is set to go to trial again on Tuesday with a ju judge’s choice.
The Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of New York, overturned Weinstein’s conviction, ordered a new trial, and found in 2020 that inappropriate awards and bias testimony contaminated his former trial.
Weinstein, 73, pleaded not guilty, denying that everyone had raped or sexually assaulted him, and denying that he regularly enters and leaves hospitals due to various health issues. He is now far from when he was one of the most powerful men in the film business.
Even if he is not guilty, he will not walk freely.
Weinstein also appeals to her 2022 rape belief in Los Angeles. His 16-year prison sentence in that case is still standing, but his lawyer said he must resent, as he took into account how his punishment was calculated.
Weinstein has been retried from the original trial with two charges. He has been accused of raping an aspiring actor in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013 and committing criminality in 2006 by forcing oral sex with a film and television production assistant.
He is also charged with one count of criminal conduct based on allegations from a woman who was not part of the original trial. The woman asked her to not be publicly named, but claims that Weinstein forced her to have oral sex in a Manhattan hotel.
Speaking outside the court on Tuesday, the accuser’s lawyer, Lindsay Goldblum, said the client’s future testimony attorney, would be “crystal clear.”
“I’m sure there’s justice in this case,” Goldblum told reporters, adding that her client was determined to testify. “It’s important for women everywhere, and for those who are victims of sexual assault everywhere, that others pave the way and show their commitment to this fight against sexual assault.”
Judge Curtis Farber has set aside at least four days for the selection of ju-seekers and hopes for the opening of a statement and testimony next week.
Judges, prosecutors and defenses will strive to whittle the large pool of potential ju judges needed for trial by asking 18 people (12 ju judges and six alternatives) to question and exclude anyone who feels they cannot judge the case fairly.
Choosing a ju umpire involves bringing around 80 potential ju umpires at a time for two basic screening questions.
Judges seek hand shows from those who are in work, family, or other duties that prevent them from serving. He then seeks hand shows from those who feel unfair based on the fees and the nature of the news coverage.
Faber will send anyone who raises his hand to his home.
Those remaining were sitting near the ju umpire, one by one, and asked additional questions about their education, work, and whether the people they know are in law enforcement or victims of crime.
The prosecutor and Weinstein’s lawyers each have 40 minutes to question each subset of the 24 potential ju apprentices. In many cases, lawyers use their time to follow up on what was raised in previous questions or follow up with zeros on concerns about potential bias.
Both sides can ask the judge to dismiss a potential ju apprentice. If too many ju umpires are fired, another group is brought in and the process is repeated until a full ju umpire is seated.
