Weinstein case judge declares mistrial on remaining rape charge amid jury issues
Weinstein, 73, denies all the charges and had complained to the judge before Wednesday's partial verdict that it was unfair to continue amid jury tensions.
He had a blank, drained expression as court officers escorted him out on Thursday in the wheelchair he uses due to various health problems.
He has been behind bars since his initial conviction in 2020 and he was later sentenced to prison in a separate California case, which he's appealing.
He's due back in court on July 2 for discussion of retrial and sentencing dates.
His first-degree criminal sex act conviction carries the potential for up to 25 years in prison, while the unresolved third-degree rape charge is punishable by up to four years — less than he already has served.
In Wednesday's partial verdict, Weinstein was convicted of one charge but acquitted of another. Both of those charges concerned accusations of forcing oral sex on women in 2006. Those verdicts still stand.
While the jury of seven women and five men was unanimous on those decisions, it got stuck on the rape charge involving another woman, Jessica Mann, who also said she had a consensual sexual relationship with Weinstein.
Jury-room strains started leaking into public view on Friday, when a juror asked to be excused because he felt another was being treated unfairly.
Then on Monday, the foreperson complained that other jurors were pushing people to change their minds and talking about information beyond the charges.
The man raised concerns again on Wednesday, telling the judge he felt afraid in the jury room because another juror was yelling at him for sticking to his opinion and at one point suggested the foreperson would 'see me outside'.
When Judge Curtis Farber asked the foreperson whether he was willing to return to deliberations, the man said no. And with that, Mr Farber declared a mistrial on the rape count.
Mr Farber said he later spoke to the other 11 jurors, and 'they were extremely disappointed' by the outcome.
'They all thought they were involved in a normal discourse, and they don't understand why the foreperson bowed out,' Mr Farber told Weinstein and the lawyers in court.
Ms Mann, a hairstylist and actor, gave evidence for days — as she did in 2020 — about the rape she said she endured in a Manhattan hotel room and about why she continued to see and have consensual encounters with Weinstein afterward.
She is ready to return to the witness stand a third time, prosecutor Nicole Blumberg said.
In a statement on Wednesday, Ms Mann said that coming forward 'cost me everything', including privacy.
'Still, I stood up and told the truth. Again and again,' she said.
Weinstein's initial conviction five years ago seemed to cement the downfall of one of Hollywood's most powerful men in a pivotal moment for the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct.
But that conviction was overturned last year, and the case was sent back for retrial in the same Manhattan courthouse.
Weinstein's accusers said he exploited his Tinseltown influence to dangle career help, get them alone and then trap and force them into sexual encounters.
His defence portrayed his accusers as Hollywood wannabes and hangers-on who willingly hooked up with him to court opportunity, then later said they were victimised to collect settlement funds and #MeToo approbation.
Miriam Haley, the producer and production assistant whom Weinstein was convicted — twice, now — of sexually assaulting, said outside court on Wednesday that the new verdict 'gives me hope'.
Accuser Kaja Sokola also called it 'a big win for everyone,' even though Weinstein was acquitted of forcibly performing oral sex on her when she was a 19-year-old fashion model.
Her allegation was added to the case after the retrial was ordered.
The Associated Press generally does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted, unless they agree to be identified. Ms Haley, Ms Mann and Ms Sokola did so.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
The #MeToo campaign leader using the Epstein scandal to champion victims: ‘The survivors are the heroes'
The swirling political drama around late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his jailed accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, and the mixed verdicts in recent Harvey Weinstein and Sean Puffy Combs trials, have raised questions around the health of the #MeToo social movement and its emphasis on raising awareness about sexual harassment. There are fears of a backlash to the testimonies and experiences of victim and survivors of sexual violence and a lessening of the will to hold perpetrators to account. But one person determined to keep survivors of sexual violence firmly at the forefront of public debate around the Epstein saga is former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson, who received a $20m settlement from 21st Century Fox in 2016 to resolve a sexual harassment lawsuit against Fox News chairman Roger Ailes. 'The survivors are the heroes in this [Epstein] case because there would be no case without them and their courage and bravery in speaking up,' Carlson told the Guardian last week. Carlson, together with Julie Roginsky, who settled with Fox over claims she was denied a promotion after she refused Ailes, are now heading a pressure group, Lift Our Voices. The group aims to overturn legally binding non-disclosure agreements that prevent employees from speaking out on their experiences in the workplace, as neither Carlson nor Roginsky were able to do under settlement-attached NDAs they too signed. 'We aim to continue lifting [survivors] up and letting them know that we are here to support them,' Carlson said. It's a mission that has become particularly acute in recent days as an effort by Maxwell to win a sentence commutation or sentence reduction on her 2021 conviction on sex trafficking charges. Remarkable in the ongoing controversy is the absence of young women who made allegations against Maxwell and Epstein and were in most instances paid out under an Epstein estate victims' compensation fund. The settlements, which amount to $121m to around 150 survivors, came with a release to not to pursue future legal claims but permitted them to participate in criminal investigations and to share their stories publicly. Carlson and Roginsky acknowledge that, even as powerful professional, adult women when they came forward, the balance of power was tipped in favor of the man they were accusing. Almost a decade later, there is little expectation that Epstein-Maxwell survivors will want to expose themselves while a political storm rages. On Thursday, the family of Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide in April, called on Donald Trump to resist pardoning Maxwell, calling her a 'monster who deserves to rot in prison for the rest of her life'. Still, Roginsky says, the accounts of women used to be swept under the rug. 'The very fact that these survivors are believed is already a massive development in the way our culture treats these kinds of cases and reports.' Adds Carlson: 'Nobody is saying we don't believe these people, and we have to see their faces and hear their voices to believe them, or to prove this story actually existed, and that is a huge step forward as well as a victory for the movement. 'People want information about this [Epstein-Maxwell] story but they're not demanding that survivors come forward in order for it to be true,' Carlson adds. Behind the scenes Lift our Voices has championed federal legislation to make it easier for claimants to come forward. In 2022, congress passed the Ending Forced Arbitration for Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) which gave employees the right to take their claims to court instead of secret arbitration. Another federal law, known as the Speak Out Act, means claimants are no longer bound by a pre-dispute NDA or non-disparagement agreements if they have experienced sexual harassment or assault at work. But the jury verdicts in both the second Weinstein trial, brought after the movie moguls first conviction on sexual assault charges was thrown on appeal and succeeded in one out of three charges, and the Combs case, in which prosecutors failed to prove racketeering but succeeded on two lesser counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, indicate that jurors, at least, are sending mixed signals to advocates for survivors of sexual violence. But Roginsky and Carlson are not deterred or deflated. 'Harvey Weinstein was found guilty and will be spending many more years in prison, so from that perspective it was a success,' says Roginsky. 'Sean Combs was also found guilty and will also be spending time in prison.' Carlson and Roginsky laud the testimony of Cassie Ventura, Combs' former girlfriend who, heavily pregnant, spent days on the stand walking jurors through her experience. 'She's been held up largely as a hero and an inspiration to many other women,' Roginsky says. 'So these are not set backs, this is more evidence that the movement is not going away, moving forward, holding perpetrators accountable, and giving survivors space and respect to tell their stories,' she adds. Carlson points out that movements to change a culture are rarely a straight line of constant successes. 'But that doesn't mean there hasn't been significant change. We have to look at this globally and not in black-and-white,' she said. But as demands for more information on the Epstein-Maxwell sex trafficking conspiracy mount, both Carlson and Roginsky are doubtful that this information should come from Maxwell or the victims of the conspiracy. 'We don't need Maxwell to tell the world what happened, especially a woman who is a known liar and somebody that I think we all understand will say whatever it takes to get out of prison even if that means protecting certain high-powered people who may not need to be protected,' says Roginsky. But fundamentally, adds Carlson, the will-she won't-she daily Maxwell show is a sideshow. 'This has nothing to do with the survivors. This is an abstraction for the Trump administration to be able to say look over here, not over there. 'It's preposterous that there would be any discussion over Maxwell getting any kind of a pardon,' she says. 'The fact that the President of the United States cannot say absolutely not to the most prolific child sex trafficker in a generation, besides Epstein, is a disgrace.' Trump told reporters last week that while he was allowed to issue a pardon or clemency to Maxwell 'it's something I have not thought about.' But the political consequences of that move, Carlson predicts, would be severe. She said: 'There would be an insurrection if that happens, and it wouldn't just be from the left or the center, it would also be from the right, because Maga is behind wanting more information, ironically. It's brought Maga, the middle and the Democrats together. The survivors should even be in the equation on this.'
Metro
3 days ago
- Metro
Disney 'pays $5,750,000 to star actress over Weinstein sexual assault claims'
Actress Julia Ormond has been paid $5.75 million (£4.32million) by the Walt Disney Co after alleging she was assaulted by Harvey Weinstein. The company, which owned Weinstein's company Miramax, paid the Legends of the Fall actor, 60, in an out-of-court settlement per court documents. She sued Disney and Miramax as well as her former agents at Creative Artists Agency (CAA), accusing Disney of 'negligent supervision and retention' of Weinstein. Ormond has also accused CAA of failing to protect her from abuse, with them denying the claims. In the suit, according to the Daily Mail, she claims that she met Weinstein in New York in 1995 for dinner and to discuss plans to make a film about Beryl Markham, which never came to be made. Ormond alleges that after the meeting, set up by CAA, Weinstein insisted on continuing the discussions at her apartment in Manhattan. She claims that she was so 'inebriated' at the apartment that she could not put her keys in the door, and that Weinstein 'stripped her naked' and climbed on top of her. The court documents continue to say that Weinstein forced her to give him a massage, masturbated, and forced Ormond to 'perform oral sex on him.' In the previous year, Ormond claims that Weinstein offered to be a 'sperm donor' for her and described his behaviour as 'relentless sexual harassment.' Ormond said the assault was 'catastrophic both personally and professionally' due to Weinstein's influence in the world of film. The court documents contain excerpts from a memoir that Ormond began writing in 2017, in which she says: 'I vaguely remember in London before ever getting to New York, him emerging in a dressing gown… I think he barked at staff who had then left… I think I fairly flatly turned down or laughed off an invite to watch him shower.' After the alleged assault, she wrote that she felt she had 'done something really stupid with Harvey' and that she complained to her agents at CAA. Disney and its subsidiary Miramax settled with Ormond on March 31, paying her $5.75m, but said the payment is not an admission of wrongdoing. Ormond's legal battle with CAA continues, with boss Bryan Lourd denying her accusations and knowing that Weinstein had ever sexually assaulted anybody. CAA has said the suit is 'baseless' and that an internal review found nothing to support Ormond's claims. It comes after a judge declared a mistrial on the third-degree rape count in Harvey Weinstein's ongoing sexual assault trial, after drama with the jury. The disgraced film mogul was initially convicted of a criminal sexual act in the first degree and rape in the third degree in February 2020. However, his 23-year sentence was overturned last year, sparking a three-week retrial in New York. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video After a second round of hearings, the 73-year-old was convicted of sexually assaulting Miriam Haley in June and acquitted of a second charge stemming from sexual assault accusations made by Kaja Sokola. The jury struggled to reach a unanimous verdict on a third count involving Jessica Mann and, after further deliberations failed, Judge Curtis Farber declared a mistrial. More Trending Prosecutors are now said to be planning to retry Weinstein on the rape charge, stemming from Mann's accusations. Weinstein has been at the centre of rape or sexual misconduct allegations from more than 100 people, with some claims dating back to the 1970s. The allegations sparked the Me Too movement, which highlighted sexual violence in the film industry, as well as worldwide. Metro has contracted representatives for Julia Ormond, Harvey Weinstein, Disney, and Miramax for comment . Got a story? If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@ calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you. MORE: Liam Neeson takes a cheeky swipe at Pedro Pascal after his insanely busy summer MORE: Justin Trudeau takes major step in Katy Perry 'romance' with concert date MORE: Foo Fighters' new drummer revealed after band member's firing and death of Taylor Hawkins
The Guardian
6 days ago
- The Guardian
Canada's hockey case exposed a toxic culture – yet the accuser ended up on trial
The stunning conclusion to a pivotal sexual assault trial has left some observers in Canada shocked but unsurprised – not only by a judge who seemed to scrutinize the female accuser more harshly than the five ice hockey players who ultimately walked free, but by yet another missed opportunity for a reckoning in the macho culture of a major professional sport. The blockbuster case seemed to crystallize any number of hot-button topics – the #MeToo movement, the nature of consent, the role of pornography, the impunity of men – in the most Canadian way possible: through hockey. The trial, which occurred over several weeks in May, saw five members of Canada's lionized World Juniors team – Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé, Carter Hart and Cal Foote – charged with sexual assault after an incident in a hotel room in London, Ontario, seven years ago. The complainant, identified as 'EM', who was 20 at the time, alleged that she left a bar with McLeod and had consensual sex with him – but had no idea he then texted other players asking them to join in a 'three-way'. In court, EM testified that she was drunk and intimidated by multiple large men entering the room, which she estimated at times to be as many as 11, some of whom were just there to eat and socialize. EM also said that although she engaged in group sex acts with some of them, they were as part of a 'porn star' persona she adopted in order to placate the men in what she felt was a dangerous situation – and did not actually consent to any of the activity. The men, for their part, have claimed EM was sexually aggressive, begged them for sex and actively consented to all of it. McLeod also recorded two videos of EM after the group encounter had finished, in which she said she had consented to sexual activity. EM testified that while she didn't remember the videos being filmed, she recalled McLeod 'hounding' her to say she consented. In fact, EM testified over nine grueling days, seven of them under by cross-examination by five separate teams of lawyers, one for each accused. Only one of the men testified. So when Justice Maria Carroccia told a packed London courtroom last Thursday that she found the complainant to not be 'credible nor reliable', it elicited gasps. As an example of these 'issues related to credibility', the judge said it was 'telling' that EM testified she weighed 120 pounds – despite records showing she was 138lb. EM had explained she was just sticking to what she had estimated previously. The judge interpreted it as mendacity. 'The complainant, rather than answering the question truthfully, chose to repeat what she had said previously,' she said. Carroccia also questioned how drunk EM could have been, as videos did not show 'any obvious signs of impairment, such as stumbling' and suggested she 'initiated touching' with McLeod at the bar despite having initially said she did not. In the end, the judge determined that EM fully consented, and was essentially lying in court – a callous take that appeared to scrutinize the female complainant's claims far more harshly than the five men, according to Daphne Gilbert, a criminal law professor at the University of Ottawa. 'I was extremely disappointed in the decision, and to me, it's the worst possible outcome for [the woman] and efforts to tackle sexual violence generally,' Gilbert said, noting the judge's conclusion seemed an extreme one to reach based on EM's testimony, and appeared to indicate that she considered the complainant to be on trial, rather than the men. 'She didn't believe the complainant and only focused on what deficiencies she saw in the complainant, and doesn't speak about the men at all,' said Gilbert. 'I find that astonishing in a case like this,' she said. 'She just completely blamed EM, and in doing so, she invoked stereotypes.' But few stereotypes may ultimately have proved as powerful as the one of Canada's mainly young, mainly white and mainly male hockey stars being infallible national symbols – a stereotype which the case at first threatened to explode. The entire sordid saga did not emerge into public view at all for many years: police dropped their initial police investigation in 2019 after seeing video that made them think EM was not as drunk as she had stated; EM then sued Hockey Canada in 2022, which conducted its own investigation and settled with her for an undisclosed amount. It was only when the settlement was leaked to the media that a public uproar saw police reopen the investigation, and lay charges in early 2024. But it also revealed the existence of a secret Hockey Canada fund, which the organization eventually admitted it had specifically created to pay settlements in sexual assault cases against players – apparently lifting the lid off a long-simmering culture of abuse and cover-ups extending far beyond the case at hand. Sponsors dropped Hockey Canada like flies. In 2022 the incident spilled over into parliament, with hockey executives called in for questioning about what they knew of the London case and whether hockey had a problematic culture of the kind that would require the existence of a secret fund to settle assault claims. The furore led to multiple reforms, including mandatory training for athletes and staff on sexual violence and consent. The players themselves were barred from the NHL, though many have since been playing in Russia's Kontinental Hockey League. Now that the trial is over, the immediate discussion has turned to whether the NHL would readmit them. The league said in a statement that even though the men had been acquitted, and the allegations found not to be criminal, they were disturbing and 'the behaviour at issue was unacceptable'. It said it was conducting an analysis and 'determining next steps'. Many observers think it's likely the players will be made eligible again. Sponsors, meanwhile, have quietly returned to Hockey Canada. It was a starkly different atmosphere from 2022, and evidence that the trial alone was probably never going to be enough to bring a true reckoning to hockey culture, said Taylor McKee, an assistant professor at Brock University in Ontario who specializes in hockey and masculinity. He said in order to address a culture of secrecy and lack of boundaries, Hockey Canada needed to turn a 'flamethrower' toward the issue. If one person has behaved in a way that is compromising someone else's safety, including sexual assault, McKee advocates for punishing the entire team. 'That's the kind of messaging I want to hear from Hockey Canada: a zero tolerance policy,' he said. But with cars passing the courthouse after the verdict honking in support of the players, and with the union for professional hockey players now advocating for the men's return, what appears more likely, at least for now, is for the story that threatened to shake the foundations of a sport being forgotten as quickly as possible.
