NEW YORK (AP) — Harvey Weinstein returns to court Thursday, seeking to get his latest sex crime conviction thrown out because anger and apprehensions flared among jurors during deliberations last spring.
It’s the latest convoluted turn in the former Hollywood honcho’s path through the criminal justice system. His landmark #MeToo-era case has spanned seven years, trials in two states, a reversal in one and a retrial that came to a messy end in New York last year. Weinstein was convicted of forcing oral sex on one woman, acquitted of forcibly performing oral sex on another, and the jury didn’t decide on a rape charge involving a third woman — a charge prosecutors vowed to retry yet again.
Weinstein, 73, denies all the charges. They were one outgrowth of a stack of sexual harassment and sex assault allegations against him that emerged publicly in 2017 and ensuing years, fueling the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct. Early on, Weinstein apologized for “the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past,” while also denying that he ever had non-consensual sex.
At trial, Weinstein’s lawyers argued that the women willingly accepted his advances in hopes of getting work in various capacities in show business, then falsely accused him to net settlement funds and attention.
The split verdict last June came after multiple jurors took the unusual step of asking to brief the judge on behind-the-scenes tensions.
In a series of exchanges partly in open court, one juror complained that others were “shunning” one of the panel members; the foreperson alluded to jurors “pushing people” verbally and talking about Weinstein’s “past” in a way the juror thought improper; yet a third juror opined that discussions were “going well.” The foreperson later came forward again to complain to the judge about being pressured to change his mind, then said he feared for his safety because a fellow panelist had said he would “see me outside.” The foreperson eventually refused to continue deliberating.
In court, Judge Curtis Farber cited the secrecy of ongoing deliberations and reminded jurors not to disclose “the content or tenor” of them. Since the trial, Weinstein’s lawyers have talked with the first juror who openly complained and with another who didn’t.
In sworn statements, the two said they didn’t believe Weinstein was guilty, but had given in because of other jurors’ verbal aggression.
One said that after a fellow juror insulted her intelligence and suggested the judge should remove her, she was so afraid that she called two relatives that night and “told them to come look for me if they didn’t hear from me, since something was not right about this jury deliberation process.” All jurors’ identities were redacted in court filings.
Weinstein’s lawyers contend the tensions amounted to threats that poisoned the process, and that the judge didn’t look into them enough before denying the defense’s repeated requests for a mistrial. Weinstein’s attorneys are asking him to discard the conviction or, at least, conduct a hearing about the jury strains.
Prosecutors maintain that the judge was presented with claims about “scattered instances of contentious interactions” and handled them appropriately. Jurors’ later sworn statements are belied, prosecutors say, by other comments from one of the same jury members. He told the media right after the trial that there “was just high tension” in the group.
Prosecutors also said the foreperson’s concerns about discussions of Weinstein’s past were vague and the topic wasn’t entirely off-limits. Testimony covered, for example, 2017 media reports about decades of sexual harassment allegations against him.
The judge is expected to respond Thursday. He could set the conviction aside, order a hearing or let the verdict stand without any further action. Whatever he decides could be appealed.
Meanwhile, prosecutors have said they’re prepared to retry Weinstein on the rape charge the jury couldn’t decide last spring. Currently being held in New York, he also is appealing a rape conviction in Los Angeles.
