The jury in Harvey Weinstein’s rape trial indicated on Friday that they were having difficulty reaching a consensus on the most severe charge of predatory sexual assault. On the fourth day of deliberations, the 12 jurors asked Judge James Burke if they could be deadlocked on one or both of the top counts but still reach a unanimous decision on the other three charges. Weinstein, 67, could face life imprisonment if convicted of predatory sexual assault in New York.
The jury is deliberating on five counts against the disgraced film producer: two counts of predatory sexual assault, two counts of rape, and one count of engaging in a criminal sexual act. They must reach unanimous verdicts on each count. If they find him guilty of the most serious charges, they do not need to consider the lesser ones. On Friday, the jurors submitted a written question to Burke, asking if they could be hung on the predatory sexual assault charges but reach decisions on the rape and criminal sexual act charges. Burke instructed them to continue deliberating after lead prosecutor Joan Illuzzi-Orbon stated that the state was not willing to accept a partial verdict at that time. “Please resume your deliberations,” he said, without directly answering their question. The defense was open to a partial verdict.
The charges are based on allegations from ex-actress Jessica Mann and former production assistant Mimi Haleyi. Mann, 34, claims Weinstein raped her in March 2013, while Haleyi alleges he forcibly performed oral sex on her in July 2006. To convict on predatory sexual assault, the jury must believe one or both of these women, as well as “The Sopranos” actress Annabella Sciorra, who says Weinstein raped her nearly 30 years ago. Sciorra’s allegation is too old to prosecute as an individual crime, but she was included in the indictment to support the prosecution’s claim that Weinstein was a habitual sexual predator.
More than 80 women have accused the “Pulp Fiction” producer of sexual misconduct since allegations against him sparked the #MeToo movement in October 2017. Weinstein maintains that all his sexual relationships were consensual.
In a related development, prosecutors are bringing a new indictment against Weinstein to strengthen their case with testimony from an actress who says he raped her in 1993. Weinstein is set to be arraigned on the revised charges, which his lawyers have called an unfair tactic to smear him during his upcoming trial with allegations too old to be prosecuted under New York law. Prosecutors have stated that the new indictment is meant to address a technical issue with the existing indictment and will not result in additional charges or delay Weinstein’s trial, scheduled to start on September 9.
Weinstein has pleaded not guilty to charges that he raped a woman in 2013 and performed a forcible sex act on another woman in 2006. The legal maneuvering involves charges of predatory sexual assault, which require prosecutors to demonstrate a history of past sex crimes against women. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office sought the new indictment after a judge ruled that one of the witnesses, Annabella Sciorra, could not testify because she had not appeared before the grand jury that issued the existing indictment.
Sciorra alleges Weinstein forced himself into her Manhattan apartment, threw her on the bed, and raped her after she starred in a film for his movie studio in 1993. She shared her story with The New Yorker in October 2017, but prosecutors said she did not speak with them until after Weinstein’s arrest in May 2018. New York has since eliminated its statute of limitations for rape cases, but prosecutors cannot bring charges against Weinstein related to Sciorra’s allegation because it predates the law change.
Weinstein’s lawyers have criticized the prosecutor’s decision to schedule a new arraignment, calling it “desperate measures” that focus more on obtaining a conviction at all costs than on seeking justice. Weinstein, who faces a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted on all counts, denies all allegations of nonconsensual sex and is free on $1 million bail.
Judge James Burke has ruled that other accusers not involved in the criminal case can testify as prosecutors aim to show a pattern of misconduct. Weinstein’s lawyers have accused the district attorney’s office of “illegal actions” in their push for a new indictment. Assistant District Attorney Meghan Hast rejected these allegations, stating that Weinstein’s lawyers were informed of Sciorra’s potential testimony in February and only objected to it in June.
Meanwhile, a ruling is expected on Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala’s motion to move the trial, possibly to upstate Albany County or Suffolk County on Long Island, citing intense media coverage and a circus-like atmosphere surrounding Weinstein’s past court appearances in Manhattan.
The New York Court of Appeals recently overturned Weinstein’s sex crimes conviction, ruling that the testimony of “prior bad acts” witnesses should not have been allowed because it was unnecessary to establish Weinstein’s intent and served only to show his propensity to commit the crimes charged. Weinstein, 72, was convicted in 2020 of first-degree criminal sexual act and third-degree rape and was sentenced to 23 years in prison. He has maintained his innocence and denied any nonconsensual sexual activity. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office plans to retry the case.
Weinstein has been transferred from the Mohawk Correctional Facility in Rome, New York, to the Bellevue Hospital Prison Ward for medical reasons. He is still expected to appear in Manhattan Supreme Court as his trial starts anew, with a new judge and prosecutor. He is unlikely to be released because he was sentenced last year in Los Angeles to 16 years in prison for charges of rape and sexual assault, a trial that similarly used “prior bad acts” witnesses and has also been appealed.
The ruling overturning Weinstein’s conviction has led to a range of reactions from those involved with the case. Weinstein praised his legal team and was “very gracious” and “very grateful.” His lead defense attorney, Donna Rotunno, stated that the decision is larger than Weinstein, emphasizing that courts cannot operate on emotion and lack of due process. Former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who brought the charges against Weinstein, expressed shock and disappointment, stating that the judicial system had let down the survivors who came forward to tell their stories.
Dawn Dunning, one of the “prior bad acts” witnesses, said she did not regret testifying and urged the district attorney’s office to retry the case. Miriam “Mimi” Haley, whose testimony was crucial to the first-degree criminal sexual act charge, would consider testifying again in a potential retrial, according to her attorney Gloria Allred. Douglas H. Wigdor, an attorney representing several of Weinstein’s accusers, criticized the decision, stating that it is a major step back in holding those accountable for acts of sexual violence.
The New York charges were based on the testimony of Haley and Jessica Mann. Haley testified that Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her in 2006, and Mann testified that he raped her in 2013 during an abusive relationship. Three other women testified as “prior bad acts” witnesses to show Weinstein had a pattern of abuse. After Weinstein’s conviction, his attorneys appealed the verdict, arguing that the judge should not have allowed these witnesses to testify and should not have permitted prosecutors to question Weinstein about instances of verbal abuse and bullying.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the defense, stating that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Madeline Singas argued that the majority opinion perpetuates outdated notions of sexual violence and allows predators to escape accountability.
The use of “prior bad acts” witnesses has increased with the rise of the #MeToo movement, turning difficult “he said, she said” cases into more convincing “he said, they said” cases. Judges have discretion to decide what is allowed in court, balancing the relevance of the testimony against potential prejudice to the jury.
Source: AFP, AP, CNN
