Foreperson's complaints signal a divided jury at Harvey Weinstein's retrial
NEW YORK (AP) — The jury foreperson in Harvey Weinstein's sex crimes retrial complained Monday that some jurors were prodding others to change their minds, talking about the former studio boss' past and going beyond the charges as they deliberate.
"I feel like they are attacking, talking together, fight together. I don't like it," the foreperson said, according to a transcript of his closed-door conversation with Judge Curtis Farber and the prosecution and defense teams.
The foreperson said he believed the jury was tasked only with considering "what happened at the time, in the moment" of the crimes alleged by the prosecution, but others "are pushing people, talking about his past."
"I feel it is not fair taking the decision about the past," the foreperson said. He added that others pushed people "to change their minds," when he thought they instead should seek to answer one another's questions and "let that person make a decision."
He didn't specify what parts of Weinstein's past came up. An Oscar-winning movie producer, Weinstein was one of Hollywood's most powerful figures until a series of sexual misconduct allegations against him became public in 2017, fueling the #MeToo movement and eventually leading to criminal charges.
After hearing from the juror, defense lawyer Arthur Aidala implored Farber to declare a mistrial, calling it a "tainted," "rogue" and "runaway" jury.
"People are considering things that were not brought into this trial as evidence," Aidala argued in court without jurors in earshot. "It's not fair. They are talking about the past. It's not about the past."
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued that the juror's concerns didn't warrant a mistrial, noting that some aspects of Weinstein's past were allowed into evidence. His accusers were allowed to say they had other unwanted sexual encounters with Weinstein besides those underlying the charges, and they were permitted to mention seeing the groundswell of allegations against Weinstein in the news media in 2017.
Farber denied the mistrial request but reminded jurors to weigh only evidence presented during the trial. At the jury's request, he also went over the definition of reasonable doubt and rules about conducting deliberations — requests that suggested they remained far apart on a verdict.
Weinstein, 73, has pleaded not guilty to two counts of committing a criminal sex act and one count of rape. The jury of seven women and five men began deliberating on Thursday.
Weinstein was originally convicted in New York in 2020 of rape and sexual assault charges involving two women. The verdict was considered a landmark in the #MeToo movement.
But the conviction was subsequently overturned, leading to his retrial — with an additional accuser added last year — before a new jury and a different judge. Meanwhile, Weinstein is appealing a 2022 rape conviction in Los Angeles .
Just after the New York jurors returned to court Monday, the foreperson sent a note saying he wanted to speak to the judge "about a situation that isn't very good."
Farber decided to hear the foreperson's concerns in his robing room, outside the view of reporters, the public and Weinstein, who waived his right to sit in on the discussion. The judge later said he held the conversation in private "solely for purposes of enabling that juror to speak freely." A transcript of the conversation was available later.
Yet before the judge and lawyers even had resolved how to address the foreperson's complaint, another juror asked to speak to the court. When brought into court, she volunteered that things were "going well," and "We're making headway."
She said the "tone is very different" than on Friday, when still another juror asked to be excused because he felt other jurors were treating one member of the panel in an "unfair and unjust" way. The judge told that juror to keep deliberating and denied a defense request for a mistrial over the issue.
After the third juror relayed her impressions Monday, deliberations continued. Jurors asked at one point to re-hear a psychologist's testimony about why sexual assault victims may continue to have relationships with their attackers.
They left for the day with a note saying they were "making good progress" and wanted to start off Tuesday by getting copies of emails and other evidence pertaining to one of the three accusers in the case. And, they said, they'd like some coffee.
Alas, Farber soon told them, the state court system doesn't provide deliberating jurors with any food or beverage except their daily lunch.
"So I'll leave it to the jury to decide how to proceed on that front," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Korea Herald
3 days ago
- Korea Herald
Whistleblower wins compensation in #MeToo case against senior Buddhist monk
Court orders compensation for years of sexual harassment, unfair HR move following disclosure A Seoul court awarded woman who exposed years of sexual harassment by a high-ranking Buddhist monk, and was subjected to disadvantages in personnel decisions afterward, 309.5 million won ($224,700) in compensation. The Seoul Northern District Court ruled in favor of the victim in a lawsuit against the perpetrator and the Jin-Gak Buddhist Order, which had reassigned her under unjustified circumstances after she came forward. The court found that the woman faced disadvantageous personnel decisions, including a forced transfer, after revealing the abuse in 2021. In an interview with local broadcaster SBS, she said the monk, who was in his 50s, repeatedly touched her without her consent her after she joined the order in 2017 as a 25-year-old. A colleague of the victim supported this claim in the same report, saying she was visibly uncomfortable about the accused's physical contact in the office. After the #Metoo accusation, the order's disciplinary committee initially imposed a five-year suspension on the monk in December of 2021. But the decision was later revoked by the order's leadership, which instead transferred the victim to its Daejeon branch. Of the court-ordered compensation of 309.5 million won, 100 million won is for the sexual harassment and 200 million won is for the unjust transfer. The remaining amount is to compensate for the therapy and treatment the victim received as a result of the attack. In November last year, Jin-Gak Order and its human resources official responsible for the problematic transfer were convicted of violating the Sexual Violence Prevention and Victims Protection Act and the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act. The monk was sentenced to 10 months in prison, suspended for two years, in February, and is currently under appellate trial after appealing the ruling.
Korea Herald
12-06-2025
- Korea Herald
Harvey Weinstein convicted again in retrial
NEW YORK (AP) — Former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was convicted Wednesday of one of the top charges in his sex crimes retrial but acquitted of another, and jurors were as yet unable to reach a verdict on a third charge. The split verdict meted out a measure of vindication to his accusers and prosecutors — but also to Weinstein — in the landmark case. The partial verdict came after an extraordinary day in which the jury foreperson indicated he felt bullied and Weinstein himself urged the judge to halt the trial, declaring, "It's just not fair." "My life is on the line, and you know what? It's not fair," the former Hollywood heavy-hitter declared after making an unusual request to address the court. "It's time, it's time, it's time, it's time to say this trial is over." Weinstein's initial conviction five years ago seemed to cement the downfall of one of Hollywood's most powerful men in a pivotal moment for the #MeToo movement. But that conviction was overturned last year, and the case was sent back for retrial in the same Manhattan courthouse. This time, a majority-female jury convicted the former studio boss of forcibly subjecting Miriam Haley, a producer and production assistant, to a criminal sex act in 2006. Jurors acquitted Weinstein of another criminal sex act charge, this one related to former model Kaja Sokola's allegations of forcible oral sex in 2006. Haley, who had qualms about testifying again, said outside court Wednesday it had been "exhausting and at times dehumanizing." "But today's verdict gives me hope," she added. Jurors were to continue deliberating Thursday on a rape charge involving hairstylist and actor Jessica Mann. Under New York law, the third-degree rape charge carries a lesser penalty than the first-degree criminal sex act offense. But the judge told the foreperson he won't have to go in the jury room if he doesn't want to, adding more uncertainty to the proceedings. Weinstein, 73, denies sexually assaulting or raping anyone. Jury-room strains started leaking into public view Friday, when a juror asked to be excused because he felt another was being treated unfairly. Then Monday, the foreperson complained that other jurors were pushing people to change their minds and talking about information beyond the charges. The man raised similar concerns again Wednesday. In a closed-door discussion with prosecutors, defense lawyers and the judge, the foreperson said another juror was yelling at him for sticking to his opinion and at one point vowed, "You going to see me outside." "I feel afraid inside there," the foreperson told the judge and attorneys, according to a transcript. Weinstein's lawyers asked unsuccessfully for a mistrial each time the concerned jurors came forward. The trial once again turned a legal lens — and, to some extent the public eye — on the man whose reputed history of brutishness toward women propelled the #MeToo era that began in 2017. Weinstein's companies produced or distributed a string of best Oscar winners for decades. He personally stood on the Oscars stage as a producer of 1999 best picture winner "Shakespeare in Love." He also became a prominent Democratic donor. When an Italian model told police in 2015 that Weinstein had abruptly groped her in his New York office, no charges resulted. Then, two years later, The New York Times and The New Yorker detailed decades of sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations against Weinstein. Those disclosures made #MeToo a global rallying cry for sexual misconduct awareness and accountability. Weinstein ultimately was convicted of sex crimes and sentenced to prison in New York and California. His California appeal is ongoing. But New York's highest court awarded Weinstein a new trial, saying the former trial judge had allowed prejudicial testimony. The retrial was expanded with new charges related to Sokola, a Polish psychotherapist who said Weinstein forced oral sex on her when she was a 19-year-old model. Sokola called Wednesday's partial verdict "a big win for everyone" and the "closing of a chapter that caused me a lot of pain throughout my life." In one of the tensest moments of testimony, she was confronted with a passage from her private journal. At other flashpoints, Mann pointed indignantly at Weinstein as she walked past him in court, and Haley cursed at him from the witness stand. Weinstein's accusers said he exploited his Tinseltown influence to dangle career help, get them alone and then trap and force them into sexual encounters. In a complexity they spent days explaining, the women stayed in contact with Weinstein, saw him again, and at times accepted or requested invitations or favors, according to testimony and documents. Mann said she had a consensual relationship with Weinstein that began before and continued after he allegedly raped her. The accusers said they were trying to reckon with what had happened, attempting to suppress the assaults for their careers' sake or trying to keep the peace with an influential, well-connected and irascible man. Weinstein chose not to testify. His attorneys portrayed his accusers as Hollywood wannabes and hangers-on who willingly hooked up with him to court opportunity, then recast the encounters as crimes years later to collect settlement funds and #MeToo approbation.
Korea Herald
10-06-2025
- Korea Herald
Foreperson's complaints signal a divided jury at Harvey Weinstein's retrial
NEW YORK (AP) — The jury foreperson in Harvey Weinstein's sex crimes retrial complained Monday that some jurors were prodding others to change their minds, talking about the former studio boss' past and going beyond the charges as they deliberate. "I feel like they are attacking, talking together, fight together. I don't like it," the foreperson said, according to a transcript of his closed-door conversation with Judge Curtis Farber and the prosecution and defense teams. The foreperson said he believed the jury was tasked only with considering "what happened at the time, in the moment" of the crimes alleged by the prosecution, but others "are pushing people, talking about his past." "I feel it is not fair taking the decision about the past," the foreperson said. He added that others pushed people "to change their minds," when he thought they instead should seek to answer one another's questions and "let that person make a decision." He didn't specify what parts of Weinstein's past came up. An Oscar-winning movie producer, Weinstein was one of Hollywood's most powerful figures until a series of sexual misconduct allegations against him became public in 2017, fueling the #MeToo movement and eventually leading to criminal charges. After hearing from the juror, defense lawyer Arthur Aidala implored Farber to declare a mistrial, calling it a "tainted," "rogue" and "runaway" jury. "People are considering things that were not brought into this trial as evidence," Aidala argued in court without jurors in earshot. "It's not fair. They are talking about the past. It's not about the past." Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued that the juror's concerns didn't warrant a mistrial, noting that some aspects of Weinstein's past were allowed into evidence. His accusers were allowed to say they had other unwanted sexual encounters with Weinstein besides those underlying the charges, and they were permitted to mention seeing the groundswell of allegations against Weinstein in the news media in 2017. Farber denied the mistrial request but reminded jurors to weigh only evidence presented during the trial. At the jury's request, he also went over the definition of reasonable doubt and rules about conducting deliberations — requests that suggested they remained far apart on a verdict. Weinstein, 73, has pleaded not guilty to two counts of committing a criminal sex act and one count of rape. The jury of seven women and five men began deliberating on Thursday. Weinstein was originally convicted in New York in 2020 of rape and sexual assault charges involving two women. The verdict was considered a landmark in the #MeToo movement. But the conviction was subsequently overturned, leading to his retrial — with an additional accuser added last year — before a new jury and a different judge. Meanwhile, Weinstein is appealing a 2022 rape conviction in Los Angeles . Just after the New York jurors returned to court Monday, the foreperson sent a note saying he wanted to speak to the judge "about a situation that isn't very good." Farber decided to hear the foreperson's concerns in his robing room, outside the view of reporters, the public and Weinstein, who waived his right to sit in on the discussion. The judge later said he held the conversation in private "solely for purposes of enabling that juror to speak freely." A transcript of the conversation was available later. Yet before the judge and lawyers even had resolved how to address the foreperson's complaint, another juror asked to speak to the court. When brought into court, she volunteered that things were "going well," and "We're making headway." She said the "tone is very different" than on Friday, when still another juror asked to be excused because he felt other jurors were treating one member of the panel in an "unfair and unjust" way. The judge told that juror to keep deliberating and denied a defense request for a mistrial over the issue. After the third juror relayed her impressions Monday, deliberations continued. Jurors asked at one point to re-hear a psychologist's testimony about why sexual assault victims may continue to have relationships with their attackers. They left for the day with a note saying they were "making good progress" and wanted to start off Tuesday by getting copies of emails and other evidence pertaining to one of the three accusers in the case. And, they said, they'd like some coffee. Alas, Farber soon told them, the state court system doesn't provide deliberating jurors with any food or beverage except their daily lunch. "So I'll leave it to the jury to decide how to proceed on that front," he said.
