New York — The deliberations in Harvey Weinstein’s retrial have raised concerns among jurors, leading to a closed-door conversation between the foreperson, Judge Curtis Farber, and the respective legal teams. According to defense attorney Arthur Aidala, the foreperson disclosed his reluctance to change his opinion, which prompted a request for a mistrial due to what Aidala described as a “tainted” and “runaway” jury.
Aidala contended that jurors appeared to be influenced by discussions unrelated to the trial’s evidence. “People are considering issues that were not presented in court,” he claimed, arguing that these influences were undermining the fairness of the jury’s process. He emphasized that deliberations were veering off-course, as jurors were reflecting on past matters rather than the evidence at hand.
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo countered these claims, asserting that the jury’s worries did not justify a mistrial. Colangelo reminded the court that elements of Weinstein’s past, particularly allegations that surfaced during 2017, were indeed accepted as evidence in the case.
Judge Farber denied the mistrial request but called the jury into the courtroom to remind them to solely evaluate the evidence presented and disregard external information about Weinstein. Additionally, he clarified the definition of reasonable doubt at their request, suggesting that jurors were still grappling with differing opinions regarding the case.
Weinstein, 73, faces two counts of committing a criminal sex act and one count of rape, maintaining his not-guilty plea. The jury, which consists of seven women and five men, began its deliberations on Thursday.
The foreperson communicated his concerns in a note following a third day of deliberations, expressing a need to speak with the judge about an unspecified “situation.” Judge Farber opted to meet with the foreperson privately to allow for an open dialogue, a decision made to facilitate frankness in the juror’s discussion, according to the judge.
In a further indication of mixed opinions, another juror sought to address the court, offering a positive assessment of the deliberations. She reported that the atmosphere had improved since previous days, illustrating an evolving dynamic among the jurors.
Despite these conflicting sentiments, the judge remained firm against a mistrial, requiring all jurors to continue their deliberations. Only a day prior, a young male juror had expressed that he felt other jurors were treating one panel member unjustly, which contributed to ongoing tensions.
As deliberations progressed, the jury requested to revisit a psychologist’s testimony regarding why victims may maintain relationships with their attackers. This expert had not treated any of the accusers but provided insights for the prosecution.
Weinstein’s notoriety includes a conviction in 2020 for rape and sexual assault against two women, a case pivotal to the #MeToo movement. However, that conviction was overturned, leading to this retrial, which includes one additional accuser, and comes before a new jury and judge. In 2022, Weinstein was also convicted in Los Angeles for separate rape charges.
This report is generated by an automated system, and the people, facts, circumstances, and details contained may not be accurate. Requests for corrections or retractions can be made by contacting contact@publiclawlibrary.org.