NEW YORK — On Wednesday, prosecutors urged the judge to reject Harvey Weinstein claims his June sex assault conviction was marred by threats and bullying among the jury.
Last month, the disgraced movie mogul's lawyers presented affidavits from two jurors who said they regretted voting to convict Weinstein and only did so because other members of the panel mocked them over five contentious days of deliberations.
The Manhattan District Attorney's Office said the jury's demands were “inconsistent and implausible” and that they provided no legal basis for Weinstein's lawyers to challenge them. his conviction.
One juror, who said in an affidavit that he observed “threats” and “intimidation,” told the judge during deliberations that he saw only a “playground,” prosecutors said. Immediately after the trial ended, the same juror told reporters: “It doesn't look like there's going to be a fight. No, obviously not.”
Weinstein's proposal to revoke his first degree conviction for criminal sexual act “Totally fails to meet either the law or the facts of the standard required to overturn the conviction,” prosecutors Matthew Colangelo, Nicole Bloomberg, Shannon Lucey and Becky Mangold wrote.
They cited a centuries-old rule that the U.S. Supreme Court said provides “substantial protection to the finality of a verdict” and ensures that, once a trial is concluded, jurors will not be “harassed or annoyed by litigants seeking to challenge the verdict.”
Judge Curtis Farber said he will rule on December 22.
Prosecutors said they refused to question the jury before answering the defense's claims because it would “cause the very harm” the centuries-old rule was intended to avoid.
Weinstein's defense team, led by attorney Arthur Aidala, argued in court papers last month that the verdict was clouded by “threats, intimidation and outside bias” and that Farber failed to adequately respond to it at the time.
Two jurors said in testimony that they felt blindsided and intimidated by fellow panel members who wanted to convict Weinstein on criminal sex acts charges that accused him of forcing oral sex on television and as an assistant and producer for a film production. Miriam Haley in 2006.
One juror said she was yelled at in the jury room and told, “We have to get rid of you.” Another juror said that anyone who doubted Weinstein's guilt was questioned by other jurors and that if he could vote by secret ballot, “I would have returned a verdict of not guilty on all three counts.”
“I regret the verdict,” the juror said. “I believe that without the intimidation of the other jurors, the jury would have decided to convict Miriam Haley.”
Weinstein, 73, was acquitted of a second charge of sexual intercourse involving another woman, a Polish psychotherapist and former model. Echo of the Falcon. A judge declared a mistrial on the latest charge alleging Weinstein raped former actress Jessica Mann after the jury foreman refused to continue deliberations.
This was the second time the Oscar-winning producer was tried on some of the charges. His conviction in 2020 was a turning point for # MeToo movementwas upside down last year. In addition to trying to overturn the June conviction, Weinstein's lawyers are also fighting to avoid another retrial on the yet-to-be-sentenced charge.
Weinstein denies all charges. The first-degree felony sexual assault charge carries a prison sentence of up to 25 years, and the undisclosed third-degree rape charge carries a penalty of up to four years, less than he has already served.
The Oscar-winning producer has been behind bars since his first conviction in 2020, and was later also sentenced to prison in a separate case. California casewhat he is attractive.
Some of what the two jurors said in their written statements echoed the harshness that surfaced during deliberations.
As the jury weighed the charges over five days, one juror asked: be acquitted because he felt that the other was being treated unfairly. Later Sergeant Major complained that other jurors were putting pressure on people changed his mind, and that the juror yelled at him for holding his opinion and told the foreman to “see me outside.”
When jurors raised concerns, Farber strictly maintained the sanctity of deliberations and warned them not to discuss the content or tone of deliberations in the jury room, transcripts show.
During deliberations, Farber reminded jurors that “tension and conflict” are normal in the deliberative process.
In their written statements, two jurors said they felt the judge was unwilling to listen to their concerns.
When the jury was asked if they agreed with the guilty verdict, one juror noted in her testimony that she paused “to try to indicate my dissatisfaction with the verdict.”
Later, when Farber spoke to jurors, she said she told him “the deliberations were unprofessional.”
