Having followed this case in the newspapers, I still find it extraordinary that any woman--who alleges that she was either raped or sexually assaulted--would still continue at some point in the future to resume relations--either social or sexual--with her alleged attacker. Here with HW, the resumed contacts did not result in the desired end: to get film work. I think it plausible that a juror might think that the alleged rape & assault charges now could have been fabricated as a revenge by the women, both of whom ultimately had resumed consensual sex for that one reason. Like the old adage: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." Every case in law has its own set of facts. I clerked for judge after law school in the 70's ; we had a criminal roster filled with felony murders, robberies, burglaries and rapes. In certain rape cases that I observed in court, it was clear that the women were not truthful in their testimony, and it was clearly a revenge lawsuit. They were essentially framing the defendants. Here, it might have been more prudent for the prosecutors to have found cases involving HW that did not have the continued relations by the women after the time of the alleged crimes. While I have no doubt as to HW's awful conduct with women over the years, the way this particular case has unfolded, I would be surprised if HW gets convicted of most of the charges against him.
7
At least, if cleared of the egregious charges, Weinstein can put away the walker. He won't have further need for the sympathy vote.
3
Harvey isn't going to skate on these charges. He'll spend the rest of his days in a little prison cell, with a sliding steel door, a tiny window, the smell of body odor, food waste, mildew and stale air...and terrible food and no movies...
4
Oh poor thing... he uses a walker. I wonder how many people is behind him, orchestrating every appearance. He needs to get long jail time, unless Trump (his fellow women’s molester) pardons him. Money really buys justice in the USA.
3
Weinstein's shuffling into court with a walker reminds me of Vincent "The Chin" Gigante wandering around Little Italy in a bathrobe and slippers to convince eveyone he was incompetent to stand trial. The judge should have ordered an evaluation by a physiologist to determine if his recent back surgery truly required the walker and prevented him from entering the courthouse with it if it was merely a prop to elicit sympathy.
6
Believing him guilty personally is not the same as finding him guilty legally. As a juror you have to decide within the confines of the law. Your morals or emotions have to be set aside. We can all believe he is a terrible person who did repugnant, even criminal things, but can we prove it. “I believe the women” is not the way to make a legal decision.
9
I never heard of Weinstein until all of this started and I would guess the same goes for most of America. While our justice system is supposed to work innocent till proven guilty it seems to me Weinstein was assumed to be guilty from the start and the same looks to be true in these Me2 cases. I hope justice is done, if any doubt remains he must be found innocent.
5
Weinstein is clearly a manipulative liar and a disgusting bully. But is is not illegal to proposition women for sex in a hotel room - particularly women who are not your employee. It’s simply legal, period. I think people need to be clear that much of what Harvey is accused of (in total) is completely lawful, even while it is disgusting at the same time. Moreover, we cannot physically prevent younger women from engaging in transactional relationships with powerful men. Women have a right to do that at THEIR choice. Women have not lost their ability to consent to a dubious relationship. Weinstein knew the law quite well it seems, and he will try to argue he is no rapist. Most of the women involved were potential business partners and not exactly employees. And even if they were, sexual harassment is not a crime! I think that is another misunderstanding at play here. If he is a rapist, though, hope he rots in jail.
28
@rjs7777 Respectfully, the accusations go far beyond propositioning; sexual assault is indeed a crime. If forcible violation of another's body - regardlesss of the gender of the perpetrator - without her/his/their consent has occurred, it is a crime.
16
@rjs7777 I worked in Hollywood in those days. Most women even in executive positions ( pardon the pun) were victims of sexual advances. U didn’t report bec. U would never work again. But honestly U didn’t keep seeing the guy. I had to quit a job bc of a sexual harassment situation.
2
@rjs7777
Seriously?
None of these women consented .
NONE.
"Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority, or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability or is below the legal age of consent."
According to the accepted definition he is a rapist and a sexual predator.
And it's not negotiable.
6
There seems to be a concerted campaign in the West to propagate the myth that all men are predators and should be prosecuted for sleeping with consenting women.
28
@ Norman
No. There isn’t.
34
@CitizenTM Not in the US, and not in the UK either.
5
That is good enough , unless Trump pardons him too saying he was very unfairly treated and see his own image in him.
4
@IdoltrousInfidel
President Trump can't do squat about this. It's in State court. Same reason why NY State is going after Mr Trump. The State prosecutors know that, given the Democratic super majority in the State, no Governor will pardon Mr Trump on anything he might get convicted on.
11
@IdoltrousInfidel He can't pardon him. This is a state, not a federal trial. Also, Trump hates him.
3
@IdoltrousInfidel
State court not federal. President has no power there
2
I predict a not guilty verdict for Harvey Weinstein. Sexual affairs are happened daily in Hollywood since the beginning of Hollywood. All movie goers and movie makes know this. That's why so many young people wanted to be movie stars. A lot fun. My older brother was movie extras during WWII and he enjoyed it very much.He got $20 dollar per appearance. That was his one week living expense in Hollywood as a student at USC. He payed a co-pilot in the movie: God is My Co-pilot. If you are asked by the director to speak one word, you will get paid for $100 dollars per line. I wish I was there. There are many Harvey Weinsteins in Hollywood.
10
@Tysons123 "There are many Harvey Weinsteins in Hollywood."
Maybe, but does that make it OK?
3
The subject of this trial is NOT a “sexual affair.” Let’s try if we could to not conflate consensual sex and rape. Rape and other forms of assault are not sex. They are violence.
6
What in the world does this have to do with whether Harvey Weinstein raped this women?
3
Are people really this thick? Of course he's been convicted on some counts, for without that the jury would have no need to consider the predatory charge, which has a predict of prior rapes. No way could he be guilty of predatory had he not raped others, so therefore they have found him guilty on the named victims in the indictment (or at least one of them).
19
Sorry.
I don’t care what happens in the trial. This is based on a very narrow aspect of the larger set of behavior he’s done.
Our legal system can be manipulated by lawyers to suit their clients. They can twist and contort anything to get their rich clients off. Their legal arguments are bereft of any intellectual truth because it’s all driven on client outcomes.
That’s why the “smartest” judges in our country, those on the Supreme Court, still vote under pure idealist lines. It doesn’t matter; that’s how objective the law is.
The journalism based on the dozens of women coming forward have done the work that the legal system can’t.
What does matter is that he is finished. Done. There will be no return to public life. There will be no second act. He will rot until his dying day as a pariah and that’s excellent and what he deserves.
I dare him to walk free and show up at some Manhattan restaurant.
4
The most basic function of a civilized society is to have you face your accusers in front of a jury and then, the jury to deliberate - absent any hype, legal arguments and pounding the table.
A famous TV had "just the facts, ma'am"
The jury proved whole of America wrong - if that's the way to put it - over OJ - after the most sensational trial. Of course, unlike these jurors - they were sequestered.
So, I say - more power to this jury - they strengthen our society.
Well, I hope POTUS learns that our system of justice is fair after all.
And not everybody is always stacked against any accused - whether this defendant or POTUS himself. He needs to learn to let the process work.
1
I hope after this trial Ms. Rotunno is suspended from the practice of law for five years for attempted jury tampering.
7
It does NOT take a Genius or a High Paid Lawyer to know and bet that the Jury has found Weinstein Gulty of the three Lesser Charges. If they had found him innocent of the Lesser Charges where does the discussion arise about the more serious charges.
Weinstein is GUIlTY.
And, I hope when the Jury comes out with that verdict; the Judge gives Harvey Weinstein the MAXIMUM.
1
I haven’t followed this closely, but I’m willing to guess that an acquittal will have an astonishingly curative effect on his ambulatory health, should it happen.
2
Maybe trump will pardon him if he thinks the verdict is unfair. I bet Weinstein is thinking he should've ran for president so he wouldn't have to face charges.
Not sure that a not guilty plea will do little to restore Harvey Weinstein reputation in Hollywood. His defense team however will be vaulted into “dream team” status. So kudos to them if Weinstein avoids conviction. The “broken disheveled grandpa” persona they concocted for Harvey was a stroke of genius worthy of the master story teller. Costume design was brilliant and Harvey poured his heart and soul into the roll. The tie clip sitting approximately 3 inches above his belt, holding a circa 1970’s 3 inch wide tie in place while his collar button was open was sheer perfection! If Harvey had pour the same tenacity into acting like a mensch instead of ogre he might have had better luck in his pursuit of women. Sad to see a talent self distruct.
3
"Mr. Weinstein’s lawyers said they would accept a partial verdict, but prosecutors said they were not yet willing to do so"
I think the prosecutors might wind up regretting their decision.
1
Aahh, our jury system. The jurors have made a decision, but it is not allowed to stand. Folks will stay locked up until someone browbeats another into submission.
That's justice??
7
and rightly so: all parties were complicit. It's enough that he was toppled. The real outcome is that pay for play in all forms should be stopped, but that will never happen.
3
I think Harvey is gonna get convicted on one or two of the underlying conduct charges. These would carry something in the five-ten year sentencing range. I think if convicted and sentenced to state penitentiary it will be 7-10 years running concurrently. Which means that Harvey could be due for his first parole in about 4-5 years and out soon after. He will be broke, hobbled, disgraced. But at least he won’t be supported in a prison sick ward for his last years on the taxpayers’ dime.
2
Sounds like an Allen charge, colloquially called a dynamite charge, to the jury.
Those holdouts have undoubtedly been bribed
11
@Misplaced Modifier
Possibly, but by which side?
1
If he’s convicted Trump can’t pardon him. They’re state charges.
13
@Bruce Egert Does Trump know that? He thinks the King can do anything.
The jury’s note asks if it’s possible that they could be hung on counts 1 and/or 3, and unanimous on the other counts. Here’s one lawyer’s opinion: They believe Sciorra but not the two principal accusers and aren’t sure if that means they must acquit or if they are hung on the predatory sexual abuse count. The answer, I believe, is that they must acquit if that’s the case. I disagree with Professor Gillers. I’m not sure that Weinstein will be convicted of something. What a shame.
6
It seems to me, after reading the Times' analysis of the jury split in a sidebar story to this one, that there are people in that jury room who are not following the letter of the law and the judge's charges to the jury. As the Times wrote, technically there should not be a divide over the charges, since to vote 'guilty' on the lesser charges automatically demands a vote of 'guilty' on the greater charges.
Which means jury 'nullification'. Someone---or several someones---in that jury room are allowing certain other considerations (read the article) to factor into their judgement here. That's a definite no-no, and it surprises me that the judge or members of the jury themselves didn't bring this to the court's attention. Perhaps they will yet.
And another thing: Prosecutors, should they not get the desired result on any or all of the charges, can elect to try Harvey Weinstein again in another trial. Pardon me, for my legal training extends to High School civics class and a few episodes of Perry Mason, but isn't that 'double jeopardy'?
3
@David Bartlett It is not double jeopardy to try someone who has not been acquitted. If the Jury couldn't decide, they may be tried again.
9
@Katherine Daniels
Perhaps the fact that the jury couldn't decide should be considered the rendered verdict? No matter which side you support in a trial, a split jury is 'we, the people' declaring "reasonable doubt"----in any court in the land, sufficient standard to presume innocence.
1
@David Bartlett
That's not how it works. A split vote indicates, at most, that some of the jury (it could be as few as one) finds reasonable doubt. In fact, whether the state decides to try again usually depends on how big the split was, and which way. If a jury is split 11-1 in favor of conviction, it's almost always worth trying again. If it's 11-1 in favor of acquittal, there would be little point.
2
I recently was called to jury duty. While no trials needed juries that day, I wasn't too impressed with the 50 people in the pool. Jury of your peers means a jury of adults with various levels of intelligence. Complex cases require smart jury members.
23
@Midwest Josh And they always try to get rid of the smart jurors first on the defense side especially - they don't want jurors to dispassionately review the evidence with mathematical precision. They want jurors who are swayed by emotion, rhetoric and grandstanding by lawyers. My spouse was called to jury duty twice and the woman who sat next to him on the panel was a commercial cleaning person with less than a full high school education and some difficulty with english, it not being her first language. The defense disallowed my spouse (civil engineer) but she was considered a 'peer' of the defendant on a white collar criminal trial.
5
I agree. I was called for jury duty this year and the entire pool was dismissed due to a key witness dying. I though about who would be my peers if I ever was accused of a crime? I would insist that my peers were other teachers. Only they would have the same personal experience of having all the blame of society for being over paid, under educated and not teaching correctly. Also, living the fear that just being suspected of a crime will cost your career and being smeared in the media .
@Midwest Josh
The joke goes, a jury pool consists of people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
All of this really might not matter much. The length of sentences overlap, and the man is 67 now.
Guilty of any is likely to be the same sentence, in practice, and that would be for the rest of his life.
6
@Mark Thomason
My dad is 95. Weinstein might live another 30 years.
“He’s 67 years old and ailing. It is the equivalent of a life sentence.” What an excellent acting job he's doing if anyone thinks he's "ailing." He had a simple back surgery that does not require the use of a walker, nor using in the improper way he is using it, which would aggravate any healing process, not help it. He's guitly as sin and deserves maximum punishment and sentencing.
156
@Sheila But look at that nice spiffy walker he has. So much nicer than the one he had before, which looked like the one my father used in a nursing home.
3
@Sheila Exactly! He's a Keyser Söze.
4
Absolutely amazing here how so many people, not having spent even a second of their time sitting in a courtroom hearing the evidence being presented, have reached a conclusion that Weinstein is guilty of all the charges laid against him!
There's a reason why we have jury trials and leave the decision as to guilt or non-guilt to those so empaneled.
All else is mob rule as has been so amply demonstrated in this Comments section.
59
@Anonymous
I won't try to say I understand your position because I don't.
As I implied above, I am only interested in what the jury decides having heard the evidence. Not what anonymous accusers have to say.
I believe in the rule of law; not the mob rule of the street. I will honor the jury's decision (or indecision if it is "hung"); not the accusations and denials transmitted by the media.
14
An odd comment considering that the lawyers in the case are women which requires four years of college and three years of law school. I am a retired EE and lawyer. Each is a demanding education drawing on different skills and talents. Half the law students today are woman. Not do in the sixties. I ran into many taented women engineers mainly in the chemical and pharmaceutical fields and ME, though when I graduated there were none in EE and it was that way for decades. Many great theoretical physics are women.
12
Anonymous,
Refreshing to read this from someone of that milieu, stated assertively and without apology. I applaud you. Yes, many men seem not to understand. A maxim from the heartlands of The Struggle: Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.
17
As recently on a jury when I hear “keep deliberating” I hear one side being condoned to overbear the other. I suppose that really is the essence of American justice. Right after money talks.
12
@John Doe
I think you overstate the situation to some degree. I once served on what became a "hung jury". I well recall the admonishments of the judge to keep deliberating after we first reported a deadlock. Finally, two days later we again informed his honor that we remained divided 7 to 5 and he finally declared a mistrial.
The judge is under enormous pressure to bring in a verdict. Literally millions of dollars (both taxpayer and private) have been spent on this trial. To accept a hung jury mistrial means facing the likelihood of a second trial. Something all judges are admonished to try and avoid.
19
@John Doe
I would take your point a bit further, Mr. Doe. If, say, there are those in the jury room who believe Harvey Weinstein innocent, then, yes, the judge is ostensibly telling the opposing jurors to 'wear 'em down'. Is that fair justice?
7
A judge with a Friday afternoon note to the bench from the deliberations room sees a big difference between a 7 to 5 split and a lone holdout juror. Granted there is the risk of 11 overbearing on 1. But that one if holding to his or her ‘convictions’ can be the determinant of whether one is convicted.
1
I disagree with every person on this line who is convinced by the testimony of people concerning events that took place 29 years ago and were not the subject of legal complaints at that time. Anyone who hasn't made a complaint for 29 years does not deserve to be believed. In fact the statute of limitations that is mentioned in the article is there to prevent just such actions. Such limitations are also called statutes of repose. Who remembers anything accurately after 29 years? No one does. This guy may be the worst person on earth, but to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt you have to believe that after these terrible things happen the victims continued to have any kind of relationship with him. There has been enough of this witch hunting.
27
There are certain events that remain indelible on the brain.
36
I remember plenty of things accurately after 29 years. For instance, I clearly remember being raped. And I remember the birth of my daughter. Funny how faulty rapists’ memories are.
57
@cl
I believe Joel was referring people who were adults at the time of the incidents.
1
HW is likely to be acquitted on a serious charge. These women, having continued contact and consensual sex, made the judgment easy. However, he
will also be tried in California. He got
lucky in New York, he will need more
of it in California or else he will get his due.
8
Has anyone explored jury intimidation or bribery?
9
@johnw
By which side, the prosecution or defense? Or both? Anyone explore misconduct- such as withholding evidence?
@Mark Shyres ...both ...of course...w/ public transparent due diligence to assure both fact based evidence & publication of the results.
By incorrectly pushing his walker next to his tall and fashionable attorney, Harvey Weinstein is simply trying to mask his guilt. If he is truly innocent, he would stand tall and confidently walk into the courtroom. This is a man with a mastery for imagery that launched many successful films, but here, he's not fooling anyone.
72
I don't believe these cases were rape. Harvey was a lech, but I don't think he was a rapist. Some kind of exchange was going on with one party having regrets later.
16
@M
There have been other cases of actual rape elsewhere and at other times. Certainly Weinstein was a serial practitioner of entrapment and deception leading to forced physical contact. It is a scenario narrated repeatedly by the witnesses/victims with startling consistency
17
I don't have an opinion. I'm not on the jury.
15
They got him. Jury wanted to re-hear the gut wrenching Sciorra testimony and could only listen to half of it. They are giving her testimony weight. Harvey will pay, all right. He's going to the big house, and I am not referring to the Playboy Mansion. Justice will be served for this serial rapist, who employed ex-Mossad to stalk the victims in the hopes of intimidating them into silence. Lock him up.
42
@Jeff
Their problem is they believe Sciorra but don't believe Mann or Haley and they cannot convict on the Sciorra alleged rape unless they convict on either the Mann or Haley allegation.
1
Sigh... And so crumbles #MeToo. Like so many tried to warn that it would.
7
liberals will again be shocked at a mistrial or acquittal but this is how the system was designed to work.
6
...”given by both she and...”. Please!
6
It seems unlikely -- and illogical -- that the jury would have voted to acquit Weinstein on the rape charges but remain deadlocked on the sexual predator charges. If he's innocent of the lesser charges, it follows he would be found innocent of the more serious charges as well. Instead, it makes far more sense to have found him guilty of at least one of the lesser charges.
Even one conviction will send Weinstein to prison for years, obliterate what is left of his power and reputation, and require him to register as a sex offender after his release. I would consider that a considerable victory for the #MeToo movement.
9
I cannot understand how so many Democrats, who loathe Trump, like K. Gillibrand, loved this man and his money for so long. They all knew that he was a sexual predator. Too may of the commenters here are still trying to give him a pass, what a shame.
9
@Got beach? Probably because Obama, Schumer, and Clinton were among his friends
7
Sure, all these women consented to consensual sex with this creep. Let's have some justice.
5
GET ALOT MORE WOMEN TO TESTIFY///////duh~!
5
I was apparently mistaken in a previous comment. As I said, criminal evidence rules do allow for admission evidence of other crimes or acts in some circumstances and for some purposes, but I now read that Ms Sciorra's testimony was offered as part of the prosecution's case for a predatory sexual assault conviction. I had missed this previous article. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/nyregion/harvey-weinstein-annabella-sciorra-trial-rape.html
2
I read Catch & Kill and I have zero doubt about this man's guilt. So many women haven't come forward because of fear and intimidation. I have great respect for the courage it took for these victims to actually testify.
Having said that, I don't envy the jurors with the tight perimeters of these charges and not seeing the total big picture of the reign of sexual predation Weinstein has held over many women for decades. He should have been behind bars years ago, but money (plus power) buys NDAs, intimidation and silence.
92
@Heidi A
When you consider that lengths that Weinstein, NBC and CBS went through to suppress Farrow's discoveries, you know it was true.
19
With each passing day of this trial, I was reminded more and more of incompetence of Marcia Clark and Chris Darden during the OJ Simpson trial.
After these NYC prosecutors lose, I'm expecting them both to get hefty 7 figure advances for book deals.
Failing to the top!
22
@GCT
Agree, there was such incompetence by Marcia Clark on OJ, and there is incompetence here too. These witnesses are pathetic, it is surprising it went this far, with AnnaBella just coincidnetally wearing her "heirloom nightgown" jeez and no panties, just by accident when Harvey "barged into her apt. And he by chance bypassed her doormen which for many new yorkers, come one, it is not that easy to go upstairs past a doorman in a nice bulding.
To Jessican Mann's requests for plane tickets and club memberships, really, can't the MeToo movement do better than these women? It is such a weak case.
15
@GCT I was never convinced that the prosecutors blew the OJ case. The police played a key role. Once the defence showed that the police might well have planted some (any!) of the evidence, the whole case falls apart. This reflects the difference in weight of evidence required between criminal and civil court (where OJ was sued and lost). The DAs were delt a hand with some important flaws. And not just that glove that didn't fit.
6
@GCT
Because all the best lawyers are in private practice, probably at some prestigious law firm defending the likes of Weinstein and company.
1
Listen to Podcast Reasonable Doubt with Mark Geragos. He explained weeks ago that the prosecution was having trouble, but that wasn’t being reported in the media. Now we have a nation unprepared for Weinstein to be acquitted.
19
The jurors probably don't believe Sciorra because charges weren't filed against Weinstein in that case. During those years charges were rarely filed against rapists but te jurors don't know that.
The current cases aren't very strong because one victim admits she kept in contact with Weinstein and that she had consensual sex with him after the attack. Weinstein cases that have been barred because of statute of limitations issues are much stronger . If Weinstein goes free you can blame DAs for not charging Weinstein despite compelling proof in the earlier allegations
21
@Molly The jury might know about how police did not prosecute many cases thirty years ago. But the burden was on the prosecution, and there were problems with all the accusers stories. Also, just because the media has already made this a slam dunk,does not mean the charges would show up in the legal system.
2
@Molly The jurors probably don't believe Sciorra because they can't separate the actress from the character she played on "The Sopranos."
1
Not speaking to Harvey’s morals or past..... but how far back can prosecutors rely on the “course of conduct” argument?
5
I believe the women who alleged that he harmed them. It is very difficult for me to believe that he could walk from these charges.
10
He’s getting off. The evidence wasn’t strong enough. I can only imagine the headlines.
15
@Bahn Mi You're misreading the news, my friend. He's convicted.
2
Glad I'm not on that jury. I have the distinct feeling things are going on for awhile. Please judge. May I volunteer as an alternate?
3
As horrible as Weinstein's evil behavior has been well understood by the jury, he's still likely to not receive the more serious, longer sentence, simply because in most of the cases where he took advantage of women, these women willingly met alone with him and often did not run from the encounter once it was clear they were alone with this predator.
16
@ERA The victims did not press their cases with law enforcement because they wanted their careers in tact.That is the tragedy of what happened to them.
18
@ERA So are you saying that anytime a woman finds herself alone with a man, then he has the right to rape her? Alone with your doctor, your therapist, your attorney, your clergyman, your tutor, need I go on? Where are we, in the Middle East?
17
@ERA
Agree, the women met with him voluntarily and likely had hopes of this meeting being fruitful for their acting careers; i don't know if he actually "raped" them during the sexual act, but some of them might have engaged in that same sexual intercourse with him with the hopes of getting a part in a movie.
You dig?
3
All of you make great points. As someone that was in the industry from 1997 - 2001. At that time in LA and then moved to NYC. I would like to share my thoughts. The industry always knew HW was a sexual predator. I read the transcripts and have a hard time thinking the woman that went to hotel rooms to meet him didn’t think what was abt to happen. To me, she just wanted to further her career and talk Harvey into giving her a part. This case is very weak! At my time keep in mind that there was no email or text so Harvey behaved differently. But as a working woman, I was warned not to work for him hence upon my move to NYC being Harvey’s company was the only legit company, I changed my career.
But as predators have an ability to change their beings to predate, I think he has acted as a predator then and I also think he knows the law and with sending those emails he covered his track and knew he could get away with it and most likely and sadly will get away with it again.
24
Well,. they have obviously found him guilty on the lesser counts. had he been found Not Guilty as to those counts, he would automatically be not guilty on the serial predator counts.
Jail time for Harvey.
27
@Lefthalfbach Absolutely correct. My guess is they agreed he's guilty of rape 3 and will acquit him of the rest.
2
So if HW is found guilty, will his lawyers then claim his actions were due to sexual confusion (not knowing if he is male or female) and request he be sentenced to a mental health facility instead of prison? It is a matter of record that he has both male and female organs.
6
I am familiar with the Stockholm Syndrome, wherein someone kidnapped or taken hostage develops feelings of trust or affection for the kidnappers or hostage-takers.
However, I simply cannot understand how someone can claim to be raped and then continue to have sex with the accused rapist over a period of time, send love notes, seek further contact with the accused rapist, etc.
Then there is the issue of why it took so long for the women to come forward and charges to be brought.
Personally, I would like to see Mr. Weinstein go to jail, but I think if he is convicted he may have ample grounds for appeal, something I am sure his lawyers have already given considerable thought to.
18
@Mon Ray
There are many victims over many decades who didn't continue to contact weinstein but unfortunately charges against weinstein for those rapes are barred by the statute of limitations.There was a time in this country when rapists, especially ones who had money and connections, got away with rape easily
the current cases are weak so don't conclude weinstein isn't a rapist if he goes free
11
I'm glad I'm not on that jury. You've got women alleging rape and sexual abuse against Weinstein, who strikes me as a creep, but notwithstanding, these same women by all reports and their own admission apparently had an amicable relationship with him for years after the alleged incident(s). This doesn't make complete sense to me other than that there was some quid quo pro. Sex in exchange for a movie role leading to fame and fortune? We see this all the time. Sex to compensate a date who pays for everything? In a marriage, as a "wifely duty"? Why is it okay to provide sex for a part in a movie but unlawful to be a prostitute who uses sex to make money directly instead of indirectly. Can someone, if female and attractive, be so clueless as to think a guy like Weinstein is inviting you to spend an evening in his hotel room to play chess? Like I said, I'm glad I'm not on the jury. Maybe I'm too cynical and analytical.
37
@Mike F. From the testimony, Weinstein often conducted business in his hotel room. With men, too. Or directed it there from more neutal locations. Given his ability to make or break careers, I am not the least surprised people tried to 'make nice,' even after being bladed (sexually or otherwise). I have seen that kind of power even in my industry, one with far less ambigious criteria for who gets promoted than the film business. You seem to be missing at least one fundamental difference between stranger rape and acquantance rape.
8
@Mike F.
There are many allegations by women who didn't continue to have contact with weinstein and who didn't go alone to a hotel room but those cases are barred by the statute of limitations
5
@Mike F
It’s interesting that your point about prostitution only seems in reference to the woman’s role in that exchange. Believe it or not, the “John” is also breaking the law when engaging in prostitution. If a quid pro quo is illegal, for monies or movies, then HW is guilty as charged.
Or do you think only women should pay the price?
6
Really. So maybe it really is 1953 after all.
13
It's absurd to charge someone with a sex crime from 2006. This should never have been allowed.
Good for the jury for snuffing this out.
7
Well if that’s the issue, no worries. He can be charged again by some of his fresher kills.
4
There's something I don't understand. I always assumed that if a woman went to a man's hotel room (or dorm room in college, it was because she intended to have sex with him. That's as long as she entered the room voluntarily. If she was dragged up the stairs & down the hall, that's rape.
19
In New York, they would go to his office. In other cities, during a film market or festival, business is conducted in the hotel suite. And what about Harvey barging into apartments?
13
@Jenifer Wolf Here's what you're missing.
Famous people often get harassed during meetings in Hollywood. People want photos, etc. Rumors about secretive projects can be overheard. So there was an existing culture of asking people to meet in your hotel room to provide a measure of privacy. Weinstein took advantage of that culture.
Furthermore, Weinstein often told women that he'd be meeting them with a female assistant -- and then sent the assistant away once the actress arrived. Or the actress arrived in his room and the other person who was supposed to be at the meeting just wasn't there.
And by the way -- even if someone in college went to a dorm room and intended to have sex and then changed their mind -- if the other person continued with non-consensual sex, that would still be rape. It's a bit shocking that you don't think so.
59
@Jenifer Wolf
Two things for you to consider:
1. Did Weinstein have ordinary hotel rooms, or spacious suites? Confidential movie deals often take place in the office section of hotel suites.
2. Even actual consent to sexual activity can be withdrawn, can't it? Suppose a woman goes willingly into a hotel room or a dorm room, knowing she may be propositioned. Later she realizes she doesn't want to engage in anything like that after all.
Is there any amount of screaming, crying, fighting, begging and imploring, and struggling to remain fully clothed that finally counts as a "no?"
Your musings don't cut it. Going to someone's hotel suite or dorm room was never consent in the first place, and I think everyone knows that. I don't think it's usually a signal that the woman wants to be asked.
22
Shouldn’t that be “by both her and Ms Haley?”
4
Consensual? The only consensus in this case is the countless women who have come forward and detailed coercive sexual violations perpetrated by this vile man.
And I am oh so tired of perfectly healthy evildoers showing up in wheel chairs, or sporting oxygen tanks to elicit sympathy and look helpless and therefore unable to have done what they did. I'm not buying his sudden decline
75
Having read the tactics employed by Mr. Weinstein on Ronan Farrow, I wonder if any contact will be made - positive or negative - with any of the jurors given the opportunity presented by the weekend.
11
I am awaiting the outcome of this trial. Whenever I feel a visceral response, I remember that, because our country has not been consistent about discussing and addressing sexual violence, I’m not surprised that the idea of having a cordial / professional / amiable relationship with your perpetrator is hard to comprehend. It takes so much effort to navigate workplace hierarchies, much less the strange courting of network connections so pivotal to career success. I look forward to a future when rape kits are both accessible (without shame) and then fully processed. Also, it’d be nice if the complexity of female genitalia was recognized. It’s really just embarrassing that a forced stimulation of the clitoris as a violating act is surprising to anyone. We all deserve better and more satisfying physical relationships.
8
I cannot fathom how they can convict on rape but not predation.
3
Sympathy does not run high for Weinstein. He's been accused of multiple sexual assaults, masturbating in front of women, into plants, no less, exposing himself, rape. Of all these accusations, only 5 charges have been lodged.
No one knows why he has a walker, except for his lawyer's vague explanation of back pain from back surgery after a car accident.
The jury is faced with what's called the aesthetics of disability, which can be used to manipulate the legal system. Without proof of need for the walker, or an independent expert on back surgery and pain, Weinstein could simply be garnering sympathy and a light sentence, even though, at the times of his assaults, he was physically very vigorous.
He looks pitiful, but what habitual sex offender, with loads of money, would not try this ruse, if it meant less jail time -- or none at all?
18
@Lilou 'No one knows why he has a walker.'
Actually, they do. For all the obvious reasons. Perhaps most famously employed by as-an-equally disreputable sort, Ted Kennedy, who wore a neck brace to the Requiem Mass for Mary Jo Kopechne. Then proceeded, from his seat in front, to turn around to see who was in back.
4
Good example for others
The only pardon, if convicted, must come from the NY State Governor, as these are state charges.
If the defendant committed these crimes, as described and charged, regardless of any contact they had with the defendant in the months or years after, the defendant is guilty if the jury believes these charges.
Victims behave in ways not understood by the average person.
Not enough space here to explain the psychology.
12
This is frustrating for all of us who have seen ample public evidence of this monster's predatory behavior. Let's see what the jury ends up with and try to remember that in almost all cases jurors really try hard to do their jobs. And don't forget the parallel proceeding getting off the ground in Los Angeles.
20
It sounds like he will probably be found guilty of serious enough charges to send him to prison for most, perhaps all, of his remaining life. While I fully understand there are victims who will still want vindication, that would be enough for me to feel justice has finally been done, such as can be achieved at this point. (Yes, the judge may give him an appeal bond and delay his penalty years more. While many doubtless hope that doesn't happen, that decision will probably turn on the legal issues at trial and not whether the jury convicts on one or all charges.)
7
I listened to an interview with Ms. Rotunno. Her defense of Weinstein is "blame the victim." For example, she said that if a woman goes to a man's hotel room, she is at least partially to blame if she is raped. I sure hope that defense does not succeed.
162
@The Judge I'm in the film business, on the indie side. As a survivor of childhood abuse myself, constantly gaslit by my family over the accuracy of what I remember, I in no way advocate victim blaming.
However, everybody knew about Harvey. Let me quote verbatim a young female director I work with after the scandal broke: "I was at Cannes for six years in a row. Harvey invited me to his hotel room every single time. I was never so stupid as to go." She would have been 22 to 28 years old, and she is everyone's idea of beautiful. Bear in mind that a young director has much more to gain from complying with Harvey than an actress; Harvey might have approval on casting, but the ultimate casting decisions are usually made by the director, so that is with whom you might want to curry favors. Harvey didn't normally get even full producer credit; he's an exec producer, which in feature films specifically means you're a financier, not involved with the creative process. He would hold much more sway over a director's career.
Nobody is sad Harvey is gone. Nobody condones what he did. But going to his hotel room was an act of willful stupidity, and it would be disingenuous to call it anything else.
45
@The Judge I listened to that same podcast- I believe she said “share in the risk”, not blame.
5
@The Judge
Nobody in their right mind goes to a hotel room for a job interview with someone whose reputation for harassment was well known.
10
His 2 accusers had consensual relationships for years after their alleged rape.
60
Because he selected vulnerable women who relied on him for their livelihood, and quite possibly also because they had emotional or mental health problems. Pedophiles, sex traffickers, and cults use the same tactic - and it does not make their behavior any less monstrous.
73
@RP that means nothing. Victims often have relationships with their attackers if the attacker holds power over them. It's out of fear that their lives will be destroyed.
40
@RP Actually, I once met a woman, who married a man, who had come through her apartment window & raped her.
5
They probably agreed he's guilty of rape 3. They're not sure what he did with Sciorra 27 (!) years ago and agree he's not guilty on everything else. This whole trial has been a farce. The "victims" kept having sex with him and we need to pretend that's normal. Weinstein is a lowlife but he should be acquited.
78
@MJG But he won't be. He's going to the big house, and I am not talking about the Playboy Mansion.
2
@MJG The part of your comment that made me most disgusted was the parenthetical explanation mark. The lack of understanding of rape, consent, and basic morality come second to the fact that you think there should be a statute of limitations on sexual assault.
I find your morality dangerous, and disgusting.
11
A bit confused. Since jurors seem to have found him guilty on one charge of criminal sexual act and also one charge of rape, how is this finding not sufficient to also convict on the predatory sexual assault charge? The requirement of “serious sexual felony against at least two people” appears to be met if the jury has reached a unanimous guilty verdict on those first two charges. I’m aware we don’t know for sure that those are the jury’s findings, but can anyone help clear up this apparent discrepancy?
11
@Matt They said they reached a decision, not what that decision was, guilty or not guilty, on the lessor charges.
25
@Matt -- The greater charge requires a pattern of more than one specific sex crime. So a finding of one would not by itself be enough to find more.
10
@Matt Look at New York State's definition of predatory sexual assault. It requires the other convictions, but it also requires more than that. Section 130.95
Predatory sexual assault
1
Why fuss about this? Trump will pardon him because like others he has pardoned, Trump is guilty of same or very similar actions.
27
@s brady, this trial is in state court, not federal court. tRump has no right to pardon in state cases.
110
The President has no authority in this matter. He cannot pardon a conviction by a New York State court.
1
@s brady These are state charges. Trump can not pardon.
"Ms. Sciorra, 59, who was the prosecution’s strongest witness."
Is it no longer possible to write facts-only, no-opinion journalism?
Personally, my heart broke for all of the women. (I understand that some could find "reasonable doubt." But that's a separate issue from media bias.) My heart goes out to Jessica Mann and Miriam Haley if they read this piece.
38
It’s not a judgment of the people or even the facts. A strong witness is a strong witness. The term is used all the time.
30
@Linda and @ Ian
Linda's correct, regardless of whether and how rating of witnesses occurs among observers. As journalism, *strongest" works only if the sentence reads, *who according to SOURCES was the prosecution's strongest witness.*
Absent a verdict, the reference is highly insensitive, considering the nature of the testimony. Kudos to Linda for sensitivity to each woman.
11
The reporters were present in the courtroom. They don’t need “sources,” it’s not a secret trial.
Some witnesses are stronger than others. It’s not out of bounds for a reporter to state that.
3
Why are jurors publicly discussing an on going case?
I mean, serious, why are we hearing about jury deliberations and that is ok.
I thought these things were supposed to happen behind closed doors, not in the public forum.
11
@AutumnLeaf The jurors are NOT publicly discussing the case. The quotes shown in this article are notes written to the judge asking for clarifications etc. That is common in trials. This is merely the news media reporting what those note are because the judge read them in open court to the lawyers without the jury being present.
69
@Stuey I doubt she even read the article, which answers the question.
3
This will be like pouring gasoline on the "me-too" movement. The problem with these types of charges is proof which is just not possible in many/most rape cases. So then you are down to he said/she said.
It can't help that there was a consensual relationship afterwards and friendly emails. Totally get that it by no mean says it didn't happen but does make it hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Fingers crossed this guy gets some time....
46
@jon You are right that if he gets off on all charges, it will create outrage in the #MeToo movement. Perhaps even affect the Presidential election.
Of course, the responsibility of the jury is to decide whether or not he is guilty on the charges put before them, not to consider the possible social or political ramifications. Having said that, I hope he dies in jail.
33
@Sparky That's a very interesting point. This could indeed have political implications for Trump. Women on both sides of politics are watching this one closely.
5
Sciorra seemed to have the strongest case. If jurors didn't believe her testimony, I am at a loss at how the other women are considered believable, esp. Jessica Mann.
I am binge-listening to a trial podcast (I don't know if NYT will allow the name so I omitted it) which gives a good deal more information (including verbatim readings of key parts of each day's testimony) than what was reported in the media.
17
I googled “Harvey Weinstein trial podcast” and found it. I didn’t know about this one, thanks for the recommendation.
3
@Lynn in DC
Right, Lynn, and AnnaBella just so happened to change into an heirloom nightgown and no panties underneath when Harvey barges in and got past her doorman.
Get real! No new yorker lets a stranger in at night; doormen announce everyone. And if she had been raped due to the negligence of a doorman the real estate company who owned the building and trained the doormen would have been sued.
2
@Lynn in DC
Another commenter identified the podcast he listened to so I guess I can identify mine - Harvey Weinstein Trial: Unfiltered.
I am convinced he is a predator, but do not envy the jurors having to decide these 2 specific cases where the women sent him so many friendly emails, etc, despite my understanding why they might have done so.
78
First thing to do is hire a woman defense attorney...and then borrow a walker.
158
@Diogenes
Clearly this is attorney-induced theater, with a lot of help from the perp -bending over the walker like the seriously afflicted (spinal stenosis) users do because they don't have much choice. Bah, Humbug!
25
@Diogenes
I believe there are Two male defense attorneys . Ms Rotunno is not the only attorney on the direct and cross.
@Joan Bee Not relevant to the case (which is riveting, and looks like it's going in the right direction), but spinal stenosis causes pain due to pressure on nerves; in itself it does not cause bending over a walker.
1
If the Jury returns a Guilty verdict on the three counts then there is probably sufficient ability for the jury to deliver 3 long term sentencing recommendations - especially if they recommend the 3 are served consecutively. Three terms of 10 or 15 years would prob ably ensure Weinstein spends his last days in a prison hospice.
8
Any convictions are the same as life to Harvey. He doesn’t need to actually be sentenced to life. I’d like to be a fly on the wall.
3
Not to worry, whatever happens, tRump is there to save the day.
4
@Allison Sadly, this fantasy attempt to link Harvey to Trump doesn't comport with the real-life fact that he was actually a trusted friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton and raised piles of cash for their campaigns.
23
The President can only pardon federal prisoners. This is a NY state prosecution. Besides that, Weinstein was a huge Obama and Clinton supporter and fundraiser. Trump wouldn’t have any interest in pardoning him even if he could.
16
@Allison
Please, stow the Trump bias and read the Constitution. If you do, you’ll find the presidential power to pardon applies only to federal offenses...
5
A hung jury? How appropriate. Heading for mistrial, and they'd better not waste resources on a retrial.
8
@Plank Why would it be a waste of resources to retry the case if necessary? What do you know that the rest of us don't?
3
@Sparky All states have budgets regarding the court system. This case has probably chewed up millions of dollars. The problem is the way linked the counts; they wanted the enhancements, but the jury may have doubts on the predator charges, and that could throw out charges as a result.
So what is the answer to the jury's question. What is the precedent? The article has no response.
2
The answer was keep trying.
2
@Blackbird Perhaps there has not yet been a response. This story is being updated as it develops.
@Richard Thanks, I understand the judge did not answer. I wondered if it is possible to have final verdicts on some charges and a hung jury on other charges in the same trial. I think that is allowed but, I needed clarification.
Buy stock in whoever's making his walker.
12
So you're a prosecutor and you need to convict someone of rape for political purposes despite not having any evidence or witnesses; apparently all you have to do is go to enough women and say, "you can be a woman who a had a somewhat transactional affair with Hollywood's leading scuzzbucket, or you can be a hero, which will it be?"
20
News flash! Prosecutors don’t convict! Juries do!
11
@Alexander
So, apparently, a man can be a rapist because he knows he can get away with it if he uses a condom, and there is not a third party 'witness' in the room?
The 'convicting someone of rape for political purposes' is preposterous. You are apparently referring of the 'me too' movement. I'm grateful for the movement and glad women are finally speaking up.
11
Sounds like a guy Trump would pardon.
7
Lock him up! The women who brought cases and many more had absolutely nothing to gain by coming forward.
34
@Jacquie The issue is that, at the time of the incident or incidents, the women thought they might have something to gain and either engaged him or allowed him to proceed. It's what we mean by, "Consenting adults."
In fact, Weinstein was pretty open about it.
11
Two words: power imbalance. It’s what keeps victims quiet and enables perpetrators of abuse to continue hurting other people. True for kids, true for adults.
6
The most serious charge carries a life sentence, but what would two rape convictions carry? At 67, he's more than likely to die in prison, right?
3
@Cord If he were sentenced to ten years and served five, he'd be out at the age of 72.
1
Hmm. It looks like Weinstein is going to prison for some of his crimes. Unless Trump pardons him.
1
@Srocket Trump can not pardon people convicted of state crimes.
7
@Srocket : He can't. It's not a federal charge, but a NYS case.
5
It’s a state case, not federal. A president can only pardon a federal prisoner.
2
Hhmm? Another mole on the jury, as with the Manafort trial?
1
How is Rape different from Predatory sexual behavior ?
3
@Bob Predatory sexual behavior requires a pattern of acts over time, I believe.
3
Just pardon him now trump and get it over with.
This is a state prosecution, not a federal prosecution. The president cannot pardon.
24
I'm just waiting for a Trump tweet and Barr recommendation for Weinstein to get a halfed sentence.
Question - what oversight will be brought forward to the entertainment industry?
There is no example of such a discrepancy in power as a Producer dangling a 6-7 figure career to an unknown actor.
3
@Tom The specter of large scale civil and possible criminal liability is a powerful force for change
8
@Tom
If me-too were really mainly about reducing the risk of abuse and assault, your question would have been front and center from Day 1, not almost entirely ignored. Weinstein was a rare case where he-said she-said was not necessary to establish per se grotesquely and endemically inappropriate behavior: "Interviews" in bathrobes in penthouses, etc.
Me-too squandered that opportunity. Hollywood shows little sign of being reformed, and instead an essentially hopeless she-said vs. he-said approach has been doubled-down on. She-said vs he-said is fundamentally incompatable with the long and solid tradition of presumption of innocence. Me-too blew it.
1
@Tom
This behavior has been around as long as Hollywood.
1
Agreed that he's toast on the lesser counts. If he was acquitted on those counts, then the predicate offenses that had to be established for predatory assault were already rejected and the jury would quickly sign not guilty verdicts on those more serious counts. There would be nothing further to consider.
Only question now is whether the judge will "scoop" - that is, take into custody - the defendant after the guilty verdicts on the lesser charges are announced. Let us hope that happens.
47
@Midwest Guy (typo corrected) Yes, I hope he needs to go to prison while he appeals.
11
Ugg... I knew this was going to be tough and kudos to the Judge who said go back and deliberate this some more and air your grievances and opposition with each other until you arrive at a consensus given the instructions by the Court. Pizza and Dr. Pepper is on us. That's smart, profoundly judicial and fair. Being excused for the weekend might also be smart for jurors to reflect a bit more, but they have an obligation to each other to be very clear about their position. There's an appeal process afforded to this Defendant no matter what they decide.
12
@DavonaD That is the law in NY. The Judge must instruct them to go back and try to reach a unanimous verdict.
1
Absolutely! As is equally the case in my jurisdiction as well.
The Manhattan district attorney‘s office is as good a prosecutorial agency as any in the country. It received substantial criticism for not filing charges against Mr. Weinstein sometime ago. It then brought the current charges which had to be amended late in the process. From what I have read it is rare for rape charges to be brought against a defendant with whom the victim continued a personal relationship after the alleged attack. It appears the office was not confident in bringing charges against Mr. Weinstein but was likely pressured by the public outcry. The attorney handling the prosecution is noted for her trial experience. It appears that, whatever the outcome, it is likely the best any agency could have done with these facts.
41
I am a survivor of sexual assault, rape and robbery, and I want to make three points:
1. Jurors on sex assault cases need to be instructed about how rape victims frequently react to their assailants afterwards. Our responses differ from what others “expect.”
2. NYS needs to adjust its statue of limitations, extending the length of time survivors can bring charges.
3. I believe these women and applaud their bravery in going to trial. I was too afraid when it happened to me.
374
@NYC Mama "1. Jurors on sex assault cases need to be instructed about how rape victims frequently react to their assailants afterwards. Our responses differ from what others “expect.”
In other words, you want judges to tell jurors to ignore any unseemly contradictions between what an accuser claims in court today and what the accuser actually did back then. You must be joking. Really.
15
@NYC Mama ..... thank you for your thoughtful contribution.
On point 1, in a country where a backwards southern state (Carolina, doesn’t matter which one) just changed a law that said, once a woman gives consent to sex, she cannot change her mind, (less, this is true), getting any gender juror to understand a sex assault victim experience and post trauma behavior.
Point 2 .. Murder is perhaps the only crime with NO time limitation to bring charges, in-part because of the severity & often physical, irrefutable evidence (DNA) convicts.
Memory recall and eye witness evidence from humans is notoriously faulty, over time, even more so.
Rules of evidence and time limitations protect innocent people too.
Point 3 ... I support all who speak up. To ALL, document any assault with multiple others, friends, family, police, agencies, therapists, support groups, ANYONE, even if charges are not files or police not contacted.
14
NYC Mama,
I believe these women, too.
Knowing what the scientific community has shown the world about the reactions of survivors of sexual assault, (with real proper empirical data which supports that knowledge) I find it shocking and offensive to any concept of natural justice, that any sovereign state or nation in the world allows time limitations on statutes of this nature. Particularly when children and young people are concerned. Perhaps removing all time limitations for prosecutions in crimes occasioning actual bodily violation is the way to go. That may actually act as a deterrent. Especially if putative perpetrators realise that, just maybe, they could spend their twilight years in prison having the most awful actual bodily harm exacted upon them instead. It just might make them think twice about the consequences of their actions.
I wish you peace of mind in your life.
15
I don't think Weinstein has much to worry about since Trump could step in a commute his charges.
You may think I'm saying this in jest but I am not. Trump will take care of his supporters and Weinstein in one of them.
17
@Jane Quick question (and note, I do agree with your sentiment here), can the president commute the sentence of a person convicted of a state law? The president's commute power comes from the role of chief executive of the federal government. If the assorted rape/sexual assault charges are state law crimes, can the president commute the sentence?
3
@tj He cannot. Trump can only impact federal convictions, not ones that result from state proceedings.
60
@Jane A president can only commute or pardon federal charges. A presidential pardon has no bearing on state charges.
53
despite all the drama and unproven (no evidence) accusations against the creep, even if this jury finds him guilty of anything, it will be overturned on appeals. It may take him going to SCOTUS to have that happen, but the law allowing unproven allegations to be introduced as evidence and testimony violates all sorts of Due Process rights as well as Rules of Evidence.
58
@mike You make it sound like there isn't proof. Not true, it wasn't charged because of the Statute of Limitations.
Under New York law, one way a person can be found guilty of predatory sexual assault is if he or she commits certain sex crimes against multiple victims, even if some of the conduct did not result in charges.
In Weinstein’s case, prosecutors allege he raped Sciorra in late 1993 or early 1994 — an accusation that is too old to be the basis for criminal charges on its own but can still be rolled into a predatory sexual assault charge.
137
@miket You wrote "the law allowing unproven allegations to be introduced as evidence and testimony violates all sorts of Due Process rights as well as Rules of Evidence." Your statement is flatly inaccurate. Look up the Federal Rules of Evidence, which has a provision also adopted by states. Read Rule 404 on evidence of crimes or other acts.
88
@mike What on earth are you talking about? Testimony under oath is the standard with many types of crimes, but only when it comes to rape do misogynists like yourself display skepticism. I hope you don't have any daughters.
96
He was found guilty on the first three lesser counts. That is the only rational way I can find to explain the current jury position.
71
@Jon Elton They're deadlocked on those charges because they were not deadlocked on three others ???
2
@Jon Elton
that you can "only" find one rational explanation demonstrates your ability to apply logic, the law, and rationality to a situation is limited
There is no physical evidence and the pre-trial publicity has a known biasing affect on a jury. Add in the judge allowing unproven claims to be introduced as "evidence" of a crime and constitutional Due Process is out the window.
Weinstein is a creep no doubt, but based on reported testimony the prosecutor failed to prove the lesser charges and the top charges will, if convicted on, be thrown out on Constitutional grounds even if it takes going to SCOTUS.
Harvey can afford to pay for lawyers to carry this all the way to the top, and he will.
8
@kenneth yes. If the jury had found him not guilty on the lesser charges, they would only find him not guilty of the remaining stronger charges.
19