Weinstein jury deadlocked on most serious sexual assault charges

[rooster59]

Weinstein jury deadlocked on most serious sexual assault charges

By Brendan Pierson

 

Film producer Harvey Weinstein arrives at New York Criminal Court for his sexual assault trial in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S., February 21, 2020. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon

 

(Reuters) - The jury in Harvey Weinstein's sexual assault trial in New York said on Friday they were deadlocked on the most serious criminal charges and suggested they were unanimous on the others levelled against the former Hollywood mogul.

 

Some legal experts said the jury's questions made it appear the seven men and five women were nearing a guilty verdict on at least one of the five counts against the producer of movies including "The English Patient" and "Shakespeare in Love".

 

A source within Weinstein's defence team said speculation about the verdict would be "premature and a mistake".

 

The jurors asked Justice James Burke on Friday afternoon whether they could be hung on the two counts of predatory sexual assault and unanimous on the other three, which include first-degree rape.

 

Conviction on the predatory assault charges, which carry a potential life sentence, would indicate that Weinstein is a repeat sexual offender. Two of the other charges carry prison terms of up to 25 years, while the third is up to 4 years.

 

Three legal experts, including Gerald Lefcourt, a criminal defence attorney who is not involved in the case, told Reuters that from their question to the judge it seemed the jurors were willing to convict Weinstein on the less serious counts.

 

Burke told them it is common for juries to have difficulty reaching a unanimous verdict, but that most are eventually able to do so.

 

"Please resume your deliberations," he said.

 

The jury later broke for the weekend and is expected to continue deliberating on Monday.

 

Asked outside the court in Manhattan what he thought the verdict would be, Weinstein, 67, shrugged and said he remained confident.

 

Donna Rotunno, his lead lawyer, has said the defence would be willing to accept a partial verdict, meaning the judge would accept the jury's decision on some counts and tell them to keep deliberating on the others. The prosecution has said it would not.

 

Weinstein has been charged with raping Jessica Mann, a onetime aspiring actress, and sexually assaulting former production assistant Mimi Haleyi. He denies the charges.

 

Annabella Sciorra, best known for her role in HBO's "The Sopranos," testified that Weinstein came to her New York apartment one winter night in 1993 or 1994, raped her and then forced oral sex on her.

 

That accusation is too old to be charged as a separate crime, but was introduced by prosecutors as an aggravating factor for the charges of predatory sexual assault on which the jury suggested it may be deadlocked.

 

Jurors can convict Weinstein of predatory sexual assault if they find that he committed the assault against Sciorra and at least one of the alleged crimes against Haleyi or Mann.

 

Defence lawyer Michael Bachner, who is not involved in the case, said it seemed the jury had convicted Weinstein on the counts related to the individual complainants.

 

"Otherwise there really would be no reason for them to be considering the testimony of Ms. Sciorra," Bachner said.

 

Another legal expert, defence attorney Julie Rendelman, said the jurors might be confused by the complexity of the predatory sexual assault charge.

 

The jury began its deliberations on Tuesday.

 

Since 2017, more than 80 women have accused Weinstein of sexual misconduct. He has denied the accusations and said any sexual encounters were consensual.

 

The allegations fuelled the #MeToo movement, in which women have accused powerful men in business, entertainment, media and politics of sexual misconduct.

 

(Reporting by Brendan Pierson; Additional reporting by Maria Caspani, Gabriella Borter and Tom Hals; Writing by Noeleen Walder; Editing by Daniel Wallis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-02-22

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

 

 

[Tug]

Sombody forgot to tell Harvey the days of the casting couch are over

[smedly]

he used his powerful position to abuse women who were after an acting career, worth noting he is not the only person to have done this over the last many decades - powerful men taking advantage in return for a career  

[BritManToo]

17 minutes ago, smedly said:

he used his powerful position to abuse women who were after an acting career, worth noting he is not the only person to have done this over the last many decades - powerful men taking advantage in return for a career  

Alternatively, he allowed gold diggers access to acting jobs they didn't deserve.

They could have just said no.

 

He claims 'consensual', they have no evidence to prove otherwise.

How can someone be convicted with no evidence?

Edited February 22, 2020 by BritManToo

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Alternatively, he allowed gold diggers access to acting jobs they didn't deserve.

They could have just said no.

 

He claims 'consensual', they have no evidence to prove otherwise.

How can someone be convicted with no evidence?

Criminals are frequently convicted on the sworn testimony of accusers and witnesses.

 

[smedly]

26 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Alternatively, he allowed gold diggers access to acting jobs they didn't deserve.

They could have just said no.

 

He claims 'consensual', they have no evidence to prove otherwise.

How can someone be convicted with no evidence?

so you approve - thanks for sharing

 

I will give you an interview if you suck (deleted) (deleted) meet me in my hotel room alone at 8pm - bring a condom

 

yeah right mate - you believe what you want to believe 

 

I know for a fact it happened in the 50's 60's 70's 80's 90's  - I gave her the job because she blew me

 

get real mate you're way off on this one

[BritManToo]

3 minutes ago, smedly said:

so you approve - thanks for sharing

In any court that operates on the rules of justice, there needs to be evidence.

It doesn't matter what crime was alleged to have been committed. 

[tifino]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

In any court that operates on the rules of justice, there needs to be evidence.

It doesn't matter what crime was alleged to have been committed. 

any 'evidence' would be stale and crusty by now... 

Did any of them do a 'Monica saves Bills evidence' thing, here? 

 

[smedly]

Just now, BritManToo said:

In any court that operates on the rules of justice, there needs to be evidence.

It doesn't matter what crime was alleged to have been committed. 

wrong, evidence in numbers testimonies become overwhelming when so many are claiming the same thing - as certain taxi driver in London should not have been convicted based on your incorrect assumptions

 

sorry mate I always respect your posts but you really are wrong on this one  

[Chomper Higgot]

29 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

In any court that operates on the rules of justice, there needs to be evidence.

It doesn't matter what crime was alleged to have been committed. 

Very many criminals are convicted on sworn testimony alone.

[metisdead]

Some troll posts have been removed.

[Matzzon]

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

and then forced oral sex on her.

Why didn´t she bite?

[canuckamuck]

Hollywood has functioned this way since its inception. That doesn't excuse it, but people should know that there are a lot more like Harvey in Hollywood.

[buick]

1 hour ago, Matzzon said:

Why didn´t she bite?

he was giving, not receiving.

[from the home of CC]

fully expect soon to see the picture in a tabloid -  Harvey and OJ having a drink together..

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Hollywood has functioned this way since its inception. That doesn't excuse it, but people should know that there are a lot more like Harvey in Hollywood.

With a bit of luck there’s about to be one less.

[Sujo]

Better start painting his zimmer frame prison orange.

 

Isnt it strange these guys all look a million dollars before trial then within a week they look like the grim reaper. I bet his doctor has found some obscure incurable disease also.

[observer90210]

No excuse for his acts.

 

But what about the women who jump into their supervisor's, bosses bed,  plainly to serve their careers ?

 

Hollywood, the entertainement industry is soaring with such women, just as the media industry or even within top administrations of governance or politics....sorry, but many women use their sensual charms to attain their ambitions. Like it or not.

 

The femen extremists are taking over and society is plainly and foolishly following the trend.

Edited February 22, 2020 by observer90210

[Sujo]

16 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

No excuse for his acts.

 

But what about the women who jump into their supervisor's, bosses bed,  plainly to serve their careers ?

 

Hollywood, the entertainement industry is soaring with such women, just as the media industry or even within top administrations of governance or politics....sorry, but many women use their sensual charms to attain their ambitions. Like it or not.

 

The femen extremists are taking over and society is plainly and foolishly following the trend.

Could you point to how that is relevant to his charges.

[OneMoreFarang]

Where is the evidence?

 

It seems to be obvious that Weistein used his powerful position to get sex. And at the same time lots of actresses used him and his powerful position to get jobs which, it seems, they didn't get just because of their talent. Is that a crime? Which part? Did he use them or did they use him? Or was it a mutual agreement?

 

If there would be real evidence that he raped any women then he should go to jail. But when an actress, who's job description is to play roles, accuses a guy of raping her 25 years ago then I wouldn't call that evidence because it is no evidence. Maybe it happend, maybe not. Fact is now she can't prove that it actually happend so he should be considered innocent because he is not guilty without doubt.

 

We can also think how this court case would have proceeded 20 years ago, if it would have proceeded at all. Should people now, with the "morality" of 2020 judge what people did more than two decades ago? Decades ago people behaved differently. Some of what was mainstream at that time wouldn't be accepted anymore today. But at that time it was mainstream. Accept it and get over it.

[BritManToo]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

did you miss the definition of rape in the dictionary

Traditionally rape = having sexual intercourse without the woman's consent.

In the 1990s some countries removed the obligation of 'contractual consent' (marriage vows)

Then around 2010 some countries changed that to "informed consent"

But just recently it appears to be, "informed consent, without the female retroactively withdrawing her consent at some future time" 

[OneMoreFarang]

8 minutes ago, Sujo said:

did you miss the definition of rape in the dictionary

 

Tell us, what is the definition?

I am pretty sure if a woman decides she will have sex with a guy even if she does not like him but she thinks that's the way to get a job that is not rape.

[Sujo]

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Where is the evidence?

 

It seems to be obvious that Weistein used his powerful position to get sex. And at the same time lots of actresses used him and his powerful position to get jobs which, it seems, they didn't get just because of their talent. Is that a crime? Which part? Did he use them or did they use him? Or was it a mutual agreement?

 

If there would be real evidence that he raped any women then he should go to jail. But when an actress, who's job description is to play roles, accuses a guy of raping her 25 years ago then I wouldn't call that evidence because it is no evidence. Maybe it happend, maybe not. Fact is now she can't prove that it actually happend so he should be considered innocent because he is not guilty without doubt.

 

We can also think how this court case would have proceeded 20 years ago, if it would have proceeded at all. Should people now, with the "morality" of 2020 judge what people did more than two decades ago? Decades ago people behaved differently. Some of what was mainstream at that time wouldn't be accepted anymore today. But at that time it was mainstream. Accept it and get over it.

It is my understanding that criminal cases from long ago are dealt as thr definition and sentence is for that period, under law. Morality and acceptance is not considered.

[OneMoreFarang]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

But just recently it appears to be, "informed consent, without the female retroactively withdrawing her consent at some future time" 

That reminds me about an article about Monica Lewinsky from not long time ago. 

She said something like: When she gave Bill that BJ she thought is was consensual sex.

But 20 years later she is sure he raped her. Because just the fact the he was so much powerful than she was makes it rape, even if she agreed.

Yeah, sure, feminist "thinking".

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Tell us, what is the definition?

I am pretty sure if a woman decides she will have sex with a guy even if she does not like him but she thinks that's the way to get a job that is not rape.

Correct it isnt. Thats a different charge which he has been charged with. He is also charged with rape.

[Sujo]

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

That reminds me about an article about Monica Lewinsky from not long time ago. 

She said something like: When she gave Bill that BJ she thought is was consensual sex.

But 20 years later she is sure he raped her. Because just the fact the he was so much powerful than she was makes it rape, even if she agreed.

Yeah, sure, feminist "thinking".

A bj is not and never was rape.

[Sujo]

8 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Traditionally rape = having sexual intercourse without the woman's consent.

In the 1990s some countries removed the obligation of 'contractual consent' (marriage vows)

Then around 2010 some countries changed that to "informed consent"

But just recently it appears to be, "informed consent, without the female retroactively withdrawing her consent at some future time" 

Informed consent was generally included so that women too drunk to stand couldnt really consent or not.

[OneMoreFarang]

Just now, Sujo said:

It is my understanding that criminal cases from long ago are dealt as thr definition and sentence is for that period, under law. Morality and acceptance is not considered.

Tell that to the MeToo club.

It seems in this court case women told about "rape" which is was so long ago that they couldn't prosecute him even if it actually happened.

But now the not proven rape allegations are still used to show his predatory behavior over many years. 

Strange.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Tell that to the MeToo club.

It seems in this court case women told about "rape" which is was so long ago that they couldn't prosecute him even if it actually happened.

But now the not proven rape allegations are still used to show his predatory behavior over many years. 

Strange.

No. That is normal. It also happened to ross ulbricht the head of silk road. He was charged with murder at one stage but that charge was dropped, yet it remained on the indictment as an uncharged offence.

 

There is also evidence of similar fact allowed. Evidence of weinstein doing a robbery would not be allowed as its not similar.

[Sujo]

I have not followed the trial at all. Just speaking to what is allowed. Do i dont know the veracity of the evidence.

 

Usually a judge in these long ago cases will warn a jury to be very careful and certain of guilt simply because of the time frame. In my view the only chance of conviction will be if there is evidence from other parties that they knew of it at the time. Basically she has to have told people within a day or so of it happening. Recent complaint evidence.

 

Otherwise no chance. But i dont know the details of it.