Why the Weinstein Jury Decided to Convict: Inside the Deliberations

“A reasonable person should have understood that she was not consenting to the act in question,” the "third juror" said. Even though they had a relationship, “it doesn’t preclude her right to withhold consent, regardless of the behavior before or after.” An important relevant fact: in many states, a husband can be charged and convicted of rape of his wife, despite the fact that she, like a temporary girlfriend or hookup, consented on an earlier occasion to sex with the gentleman. Anther important consideration: why would any reasonable person think that another reasonable person would ever truly "consent" to being mauled or penetrated by such a, well, creep as Harvey Weinstein? Boggles the mind, as we used to say. Meanwhlle, what DID happen to all those plants upon which he apparently relieved himself? Or did they allegedly consent, too?

If Weinstein can recall a even a single situation where during the relationships with the key witnesses where they touched or kissed him when he did not wish to be touched or kissed can those witnesses be charged with a sexual assault?

Thank you for your service.

I served on a criminal jury a few years ago. I too made myself almost physically sick because I didn’t know if my fellow jurors felt the same as I did. Luckily, we were all in immediate agreement when we were finally charged. But let’s back up a moment to the naked picture of Weinstein. I hope it’s leaked to the media. It would debase Harvey the way he debased his victims. And everyone needs a good emetic now and then.

I can't even make it through this article. I am still feeling too much rage that it took THIS LONG for Weinstein to get to trial. That he hurt SO MANY women over the years, and got away with it for so long. Ugh, our culture is still broken and disgusting. It's not much victory for "MeToo" -- it feels like very little, very late. I have choice words for the (obviously male) commenters herein as well, but I want my comment to be approved.

Weinstein is over. Totally over. Cover and expose sexual predators everywhere. But stop following this low life. Never again mention his name.

While this is not an exact analogy, what happens if one hires a prostitute and, after taking the money s/he says I didn't really consent to have sex with you?

appellate lawyers, are you reading?

It is very good to know that, even in the current atmosphere of shameless politicization and fragmentation, a group of 12 citizens can take their civic duties seriously and work together as a group to resolve a complicated problem. It gives me hope that there are still honest, hardworking, thoughtful people in this country.

So his not testifying hurt his case even though that's specifically not to be the case per the jury instructions. Ongoing relationships suggest happiness and consent, tit for tat and all that.

If a jury has this much difficulty ascertaining guilt how can we expect university administrators to do a responsible job?

Quote from the article: "[t]he three jurors thought Mr. Weinstein’s decision not to testify...probably hurt his case." Without getting into the heated arguments on either side about Mr. Weinstein or the allegations against him, I will point out the quote above alone may very well be the basis for a new trial or a reversal on appeal. It is a fundamental tenet of our system that jurors are not to consider in any way the fact that a defendant chooses not to testify. That is based on the 5th Amendment and is a bedrock of our jury system. I won't knock his lawyer since I didn't read the voir dire transcript, but it is really a critical necessity of the defense attorney to thoroughly and effectively conduct voir dire on this topic. Get ready for Mr. Weinstein to throw his attorney under the bus while asking for a new trial and claiming she dissuaded him from exercising his right to testify. That being said, any qualified defense attorney would be very reluctant to put him on the stand. And truly, most defendants don't testify well, innocent or not.

The rule prohibiting trial of a person for independent crimes before the same jury is fundamental in American jurisprudence.If one alleged victim's testimony is not persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt, stacking up a number of such alleged victims -- each insufficient standing alone -- will certainly do the job in the aggregate. That is why it is not permitted in the case in chief. Evidence of habit and other crimes should only come in if the defendant takes the stand, and only to impeach his credibility. The trial court was wrong to permit the trial to go forward in this form, and certainly so after the jury acquitted of the dubious "pattern of conduct" crime.

An intelligent jury! They separated the wheat from the chaff and accomplished what seemed un-accomplishable. They plowed through the grunt work and they applied their intellect. Moreover, they didn't give up for give in to emotional depletion and physical deprivation. You have my utmost respect.

At what point does a non-consensual act, in the middle of a history of sexual consent, warrant a prison sentence? Did the victims in this case think that Weinstein should be in prison while they were continuing to reach out to him? The conviction seems warranted but I'm not convinced about 25 years in jail based on these facts.

I'm always cheered by how seriously juries take their responsibilities. It gives me hope for the system. Sure, I bet not all juries do the job diligently. But it seems that overall, people take care to do their best. That's why our country will get through the tough times, like now.

First let me say that what Weinstein did is not acceptable, and is wrong. On the case itself, to be honest, while I'm quite sure Weinstein used his power in exchange for sex with the two testified women, the emails afterwards show these women were willing participants, plausibly from the very beginning. This case in essence is more of prostitution than rape: willing participants, money/power for sex. If it were up to the law and evidence alone, I'm not convinced they are enough for a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

And so twelve angry men have done their job and rendered their verdict (the phrase is of course the title of a well-known 1950's play and subsequent movie; I use it here with deliberate irony), The article notes: "In the end, the jurors said the panel gave little weight to the fact that Mr. Weinstein’s two main accusers — Miriam Haley, 42, and Jessica Mann, 34 — had maintained relationships with Mr. Weinstein after the attacks and later had sex with him." That decision by the jury is likely what resulted in the guilty verdict. This article is of interest, but I hope the media, including the Times, will not undermine the jury system by violating the anonymity of those jurors who wish to remain anonymous. The press, including the Times, has done so in other high profile cases in the past, and hopefully will not do so again. As for Mr. Weinstein, he still faces another trial in California. I believe he had a fair trial in New York, but I don't think he can have one in California. The successful recall and subsequent legal and personal actions against former California judge Aaron Persky make it impossible to hold a fair trial with an impartial judge in California. This is a discussion for another day.

What a wonderful group of men and women. They filtered out the noise, they dealt with their own misperceptions and biases, they concentrated mightily in order to come to the fairest, most just verdict that human beings can obtain. When the jury system works like this, it truly makes you proud.

I appreciate this article for shedding light on the jury's deliberation, and of course the jurors for their thoughtful deliberations, focused on consent in the moment and pattern of behavior over time. Consent in the moment is all that matters--if you know your partner isn't consenting, or if you're unsure your partner is consenting, you should stop, period. There's no excuse for going further other than selfishness. It doesn't matter that the "casting couch culture" is as old as Hollywood itself, or people carried on relationships after, or even benefited after in some way. All that matters is what happened in that moment, whether it was voluntary or not. Weinstein took advantage of women on umpteen occasions and was enabled by the system. I'm so grateful to the jurors for doing their civic duties.

When I lived in Brooklyn, I was selected to serve on 2 juries and was sequestered for both trials - once in Staten Island and once in Queens. For one of the trials, we had an armed guard sitting outside our hotel room because of the defendants. I can identify with the intense deliberations, the disagreements, and the exhaustion. We had to have the description of the charges and the explanation by the judges read to us again in the courtrooms - both trials! - as jurors had not clarified their thoughts or just were not paying as much attention as they should have during the proceedings. I remember one holdout when the verdict was 11-1 and as a result we had to be sequestered. I had to remind him that this was not a remake of 12 Angry Men and there was no way he was going to convince the 11 of us. He came around the next day when the charges and the definition of each charge was explained to him.

Anyone who has sat through a difficult felony trial can appreciate the complexity of the jury deliberations in this case. These people did their civic duty. It's an old-fashioned obligation sneered at by such as DT, and it's not perfect, but it is impressive when the jurors attempt to be fair. I was glad to see Weinstein taken immediately into custody; otherwise, with his money, he would have been on the streets for years.