In brief
Harvey Weinstein, the former Hollywood mogul, is appealing his recent conviction on sex crime charges, arguing that juror tensions influenced their deliberations. During the previous trial, jurors reported conflicts and pressure among themselves, leading to a split verdict. Weinstein’s legal team claims that these issues compromised the trial's integrity. Prosecutors, however, contend that the trial was conducted fairly and assert they are ready to retry Weinstein on a charge that resulted in a hung jury. The judge's decision on the appeal is highly anticipated, given its implications for ongoing discussions surrounding accountability and the #MeToo movement.
NEW YORK (AP) — Harvey Weinstein returns to court Thursday, seeking to get his latest sex crime conviction thrown out due to rising anger and apprehensions among jurors last spring.
This marks yet another complex chapter in the former Hollywood executive’s tumultuous journey through the American legal system. His #MeToo-era case spans seven years, trials in two states, and a series of legal challenges, culminating in a retrial that ended with a divided verdict in New York last year. Weinstein was found guilty of forcing oral sex on one woman, acquitted on a second charge involving another woman, and a jury deadlocked on a third charge of rape.
At 73, Weinstein denies all allegations against him, which became public in 2017 alongside a wave of sexual assault allegations. The fallout fueled the #MeToo movement calling out sexual misconduct. Initially, Weinstein issued an apology for his past behavior but maintained he never engaged in non-consensual sexual acts.
During the trial, Weinstein's defense team claimed that the women involved had willingly accepted his advances while hoping to secure work in the entertainment industry and that they later falsely accused him to receive financial settlements.
The previous jury's mixed verdict came after multiple jurors reported unusual stress and conflict during deliberations, even going as far as to approach the judge about tensions within the panel. One juror complained of being “shunned” by others; another spoke of feeling verbally pressured during discussions.
Judge Curtis Farber reminded jurors about the confidentiality of their deliberations, but the subsequent tensions have led Weinstein’s lawyers to argue that juror safety and the fairness of the trial were compromised. They seek either to banish the conviction or to conduct a hearing regarding these juror conflicts.
Prosecutors assert that the judge managed juror complaints appropriately and have expressed readiness to retry Weinstein on the unresolved rape charges from the last trial. For now, the decision lies with the judge, who may choose to toss the conviction, order a hearing, or uphold the verdict.
