New York jury convicts Harvey Weinstein of top charge in #MeToo sex crimes retrial
Former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was convicted on Wednesday of one of the top charges in his sex crimes retrial but acquitted of another. Jurors were unable to reach a verdict on a third charge.
The split verdict was a measure of vindication for his accusers and prosecutors, but also to Weinstein after the landmark case was thrown into limbo.
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 forcing oral sex on Miriam Haley to a criminal sex act in 2006.
But jurors acquitted Weinstein of another criminal sex act charge against Kaja Sokola the same year.
And jurors were to continue deliberating on a charge that he raped another woman in 2013.
Under New York law, the third-degree rape charge carries a lesser penalty than the first-degree criminal sex act offence.
Weinstein, 73, denies sexually assaulting or raping anyone.
Jury deliberations had teetered on Wednesday as the foreperson again requested to speak to the judge about "a situation" he found troubling.
The man, who complained on Monday that other jurors were pushing people to change their minds and talking about information beyond the charges, was being questioned in private, at his request.
While the jury was in court to hear the answer to an earlier request to re-hear the text of a rape law, the foreperson signalled to Judge Curtis Farber that he wanted to talk.
"He said words to the effect of 'I can't go back in there with the other jurors,'" Farber explained later. The foreperson was sent to wait in a separate room, where he penned a note saying, "I need to talk to you about a situation."
When briefly brought into court, the foreperson said he wanted to speak in private. He, the judge, prosecutors and Weinstein's lawyers then went behind closed doors.
The discussion was closed to the press and public, but Farber later said the foreperson had expressed that he didn't want to change his position and was being bullied.
"He did indicate that at least one other juror made comments to the effect of 'I'll meet you outside one day,' and there's yelling and screaming," the judge said.
Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala characterised the foreperson's concerns more severely, saying that the man had said he was concerned for his safety after his fellow panellist talked about meeting him outside.
"I don't think the court is protecting this juror. Period," Aidala said, going on to ask for a mistrial.
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, however, said the foreperson hadn't seemed afraid or apprehensive, just "stubborn."
"He said he'd made up his mind, he didn't want to change it, and people were pressuring him to change it. That's what jury deliberations involve," the prosecutor said.
The episode was the latest sign of strain among the jurors. On Friday, one of them asked to be excused because he felt another member of the group was being treated unfairly.
Weinstein's lawyers asked unsuccessfully for a mistrial then and again after the foreperson expressed his concerns on Monday. The jury kept deliberating and went through Tuesday without sending any more messages about interpersonal tensions.
The seven female and five male jurors started their fifth day of deliberations on Wednesday by re-hearing accuser Jessica Mann's testimony that he raped her in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013.
The group wrapped up Tuesday's deliberations by asking to revisit that testimony.
Some jurors appeared to take fresh notes on Wednesday, while others sat impassively as court stenographers read aloud the requested parts of Mann's days-long testimony. The jury had already reheard some of the passages last week.
Weinstein pleaded not guilty to raping Mann and to forcing oral sex on two other women, Mimi Haley and Kaja Sokola.
The Oscar-winning producer and former Hollywood powerbroker maintains that he never sexually assaulted or raped anyone while his lawyers portrayed his accusers as opportunists who accepted his advances because they wanted to advance their careers in the entertainment world.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Stopping future Harvey Weinsteins — The NY Assembly must join the state Senate and pass the similar crimes bill
Harvey Weinstein is guilty, in a Manhattan state courtroom, of a 2006 sexual assault, again, just like he was found guilty in a Manhattan state courtroom five years ago of the same 2006 sexual assault. Weinstein's first conviction was thrown out and a new trial was needed because New York law does not allow the use of evidence from other, prior sexual offenses. That law needs to be changed and the state Senate passed a reform last year sponsored by chamber's No. 2 leader, Sen. Mike Gianaris, with a remarkable and overwhelming tally of 55-4. The Assembly and Speaker Carl Heastie need to match that before they break for the summer next Tuesday or another year will go by and prosecutors won't have all the tools they need to pursue horrible monsters like Weinstein. This is not a partisan matter; Gianaris is a Democrat, but every Republican senator voted for his measure, along with almost every Democrat. The numbers in the Assembly will be similar, provided Heastie brings forward the bill, sponsored by Assemblywoman Amy Paulin. Under the fix put forward by Gianaris and Paulin, New York would join the federal standard, which is also used by a good number of states, which permits admitting evidence of a defendant's prior sexual offenses in certain circumstances. What happened in the initial Weinstein prosecution in 2020 was the Manhattan district attorney asked the trial judge if it was permissible to use such testimony and the judge approved it, as did a unanimous appellate bench. Under New York law, that is occasionally allowed, on a case by case basis. But when it reached the state's highest court, it was narrowly overruled, tossing the whole Weinstein case and forcing this new trial. This time, the Manhattan DA didn't include any witnesses to testify about Weinstein's previous assaults and the jury still convicted him. But the law still must be reformed. As one expert points out, this verdict is yet further evidence that juries are capable of hearing evidence about multiple charges involving different victims without being overcome by prejudice, as they convicted Weinstein on one 2006 sex charge yesterday, but acquitted him of another from that same year. As to the third charge, from 2013, the jury will continue its deliberations today. The Gianaris/Paulin similar crimes bill, which 16 other states have, is fair to defendants and fair to victims. Such laws have been challenged in state and federal courts and determined to be constitutional. The sponsor's memo in the bill's justification mentions Harvey Weinstein and the reverse of his first conviction as the need for the legislation. That such an awful criminal is being invoked for something constructive to improve New York's criminal prosecution system is a tiny bit of justice. If the Assembly passes the bill and Gov. Hochul signs it, Weinstein can spend his coming many years in state prison thinking how he helped change the laws of New York in a positive way. But should Heastie not even allow a vote, Weinstein will still be heading to prison, but the law will remain badly out of date, denying future victims their chance for justice. Bring the bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker. _____
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Court battles continue over Sask. Instagram account that made anonymous sexual violence allegations in 2020
In 2020, someone started posting on an anonymous Instagram account alleging sexual assault, harassment and abuse by men in Regina. While it was operational, the victimsvoicesregina account named several high-profile people, including a Regina city councillor, a musician and leaders in the non-profit community. The page was shuttered after legal threats from men who alleged some of the posts were defamatory. Five years later, a series of related lawsuits are continuing to make their way through the Saskatchewan court system. A May 8 decision from Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal ordering SaskTel to hand over identifying documents shows that at least one of those lawsuits may be close to identifying the two women that operated victimsvoicesregina. Mandi Gray is an assistant professor at Trent University who has studied structural violence in Canada's legal system. She said her research indicates defamation suits are increasingly being used as a tool to silence alleged victims of sexual abuse who have come forward to speak out. That has only increased since the MeToo movement in 2020, which sought to hold people accountable for sexual violence, Gray said. "There were consequences for many people who were accused of sexual violence and, as a result of the reputational harm that they're alleging, they have taken action," Gray said. "It is a lot of men with access to resources and power, like celebrities and politicians, but we're also seeing it among regular people, as well, as a tactic to silence and punish people for speaking about what had happened to them." WATCH | Lawsuits used to silence victims, says researcher: MeToo movement in Regina CBC has been able to confirm that at least three lawsuits have been filed against the operators of the victimsvoicesregina account. The plaintiffs include a Regina teacher, a man named Ryan Boldt, and someone identified only as A.H., whose lawsuit was referenced in the Court of Appeal decision. CBC has previously spoken with one of the two women who operated the victimsvoicesregina account. CBC agreed not to name the woman, who is a survivor of sexual assault. She launched the Instagram page, also known as Survivor's Stories Regina, in July 2020 in response to a CBC News investigation that uncovered numerous allegations of verbal sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour against mental health advocate and former Earls manager Jim Demeray, who said the allegations against him were "baseless and untrue." It was one of multiple similar accounts that emerged across Canada during the MeToo movement, which sought accountability for sexual violence perpetrated by the rich and powerful. The account was quickly shut down under threats of lawsuits against the operators. Gray said that demonstrates how defamation lawsuits are a powerful tool. "Even just the mere threat of a defamation lawsuit can often be enough to shut people down from coming forward and reporting, but also just talking about sexual violence more generally," she said. WATCH | $1M defamation lawsuit The decision from the Court of Appeal is tied to a June 2021 civil lawsuit by Boldt, represented by Madlin Lucyk of Nychuk & Company, a Regina-based legal firm. Lucyk declined to comment for this story. Boldt filed the lawsuit against three women — referred to in the suit as Jane Doe, Betty Doe and Sally Doe — and Meta Platforms, the company that operates Facebook and Instagram. Boldt alleges that Betty created a false and defamatory story about Boldt sexually harassing her. He alleges that Betty Doe brought the story to Jane Doe and Sally Doe, who administered the victimsvoicesregina account. On July 25, 2020, the account published the story without "taking any steps to verify" the accuracy of the story or the comments made on the post, the lawsuit says. Boldt claims he suffered $1,000,000 in damages as a result of the the defamatory post. He is also seeking punitive and aggravated damages. Since Boldt does not know the identities of Betty Doe or the administrators of the account, and requires that information to properly file his lawsuit, Boldt's legal team filed an application with Telus, Access and SaskTel. The application directed each telecommunication company to produce documents tied to activity from certain internet protocol (IP) addresses at specific dates and times, including account holder name, account holder addresses, account holder billing information, account holder email addresses, physical addresses related to IP addresses and any other identifying information. Although Telus and Access took no position on the application, SaskTel opposed the motion. The Crown Corporation argued that the documents were subject to solicitor-client privilege as they were in the possession of the organization's legal department and that Boldt had not established that they were relevant to his claim. In April 2024, a Court of King's Bench judge ruled against Boldt, finding that the legal confidentiality trumped Boldt's interests. Boldt's appeal of that ruling was heard by a panel of judges including Justice Georgina Jackson, Justice Keith Kilback and Justice Meghan McCreary. The panel found that because the Court of King's Bench judge failed to perform an analysis, and instead simply accepted SaskTel's assertions, the judge made a legal error. The court found that since SaskTel admits it possesses or controls at least some of the identifying documents and they are relevant to the identity of at least one of Jane Doe, Betty Doe or Sally Doe, they should be produced as part of the lawsuit. It also ruled that the information should be held by Boldt and his legal team "in the strictest confidence" and should only be used in this specific litigation. SaskTel did not answer whether it plans to appeal. In a statement, the Crown Corporation said SaskTel is committed to "acting in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including full compliance with court orders."
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Yahoo
Harvey Weinstein accuser blames surprise reveal of her long-lost journal for disgraced producer walking on sex assault charge at NYC retrial
A former Polish model who accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault blamed the surprise revelation of her decade-old journal – and her sister's betrayal – for jurors not finding him guilty of the rap this week. Kaja Sokola, 39, admitted feeling deeply hurt over a dramatic showdown on the stand when she learned that her sister had given her long-lost, private Alcoholics Anonymous recovery journal to Weinstein's defense attorneys. 'I don't think there would be a verdict like that if my sister didn't give that journal,' she told The Post Friday. The lawyers used the journal – which mentioned two people who sexually assaulted Sokola, but not Weinstein – to sow doubt over her accusations that the Tinseltown terror forcibly performed oral sex on her at a Tribeca hotel in 2006, days shy of her 20th birthday. 'They were trying to use the dirtiest tactics that they can,' she said. But Sokola said she was still very happy the jury at Weinstein's bombshell Manhattan retrial convicted him on another woman's accusations because it ensures the perv producer likely will spend the rest of his life in prison. The squabbling jurors on Wednesday found Weinstein, 73, guilty of a criminal sex act charge for allegedly assaulting Miriam 'Mimi' Haley, a former TV production assistant. But they acquitted the disgraced sex fiend on the same charge connected to Sokola's accusations, which she had detailed in tear-filled testimony last month. Jurors also couldn't reach a verdict on a rape count stemming from a third victim, Jessica Mann, leading to a mistrial on that charge. Sokola said the outcome regarding her charge didn't matter so long as Weinstein was held accountable for his predatory behavior. 'I'm not bitter,' she said, but added, 'I was surprised.' The psychotherapist's path to the witness stand came after an appeals court overturned Weinstein's conviction in his watershed 2020 Manhattan trial, in which Haley and Mann had testified, but not Sokola. Prosecutors brought Haley and Mann back for the retrial, and also asked Sokola to testify — which she said was a difficult decision for her to make. 'It is easy to forget we have this strength – it is not gone, it is there,' she told The Post. Sokola testified that Weinstein assaulted her three times, starting when she was just 16 in 2002. But during cross-examination Weinstein's lawyers confronted her with the journal, which they said had been given to them by her sister, who testified earlier in the trial for the prosecution. It included entries on 'rape' and 'forced sex' about other people who had allegedly sexually abused Sokola, but that only mentioned the Hollywood producer once. Sokola contended she wrote about Weinstein's alleged rape in other diaries she no longer has access to — and felt blindsided by her sister's apparent collaboration with the producer's defense. 'She manipulated the situation and chose this one workbook,' the former model said. Weinstein's attorney Arthur Aidala didn't return a call for comment. Sokola, despite her painful experience, said she would not discourage survivors of sexual assault from coming forward. 'Don't stay alone with that, it's the most important thing,' she said.
