logo
Everything you need to know about Harvey Weinstein's retrial – and why he still won't be released from prison

Everything you need to know about Harvey Weinstein's retrial – and why he still won't be released from prison

Sky News15-04-2025

Seven years after allegations against him first emerged online, Harvey Weinstein is back in court.
When the accusations surfaced in late 2017, the American actress Alyssa Milano tweeted: "If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote 'Me too' as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem."
This gave birth to what we now know as the #MeToo movement and a flood of women - famous and not - sharing stories of gender-based violence and harassment.
Weinstein was jailed in 2020 and has been held at New York's notorious Rikers Island prison complex ever since.
Today, jury selection begins for the case against the 73-year-old, where the original charges of rape and sexual assault will be heard again.
Here we look at why there's a retrial - and why he will likely remain behind bars - and what has happened to #MeToo.
Why is there a retrial?
Weinstein is back in court because his first two convictions were overturned last April and are now being retried.
In 2020 he was sentenced to 23 years in prison after being found guilty of sexually assaulting ex-production assistant Mimi Haley in 2006 and raping former actor Jessica Mann in 2013.
But in April 2024, New York's highest court overturned both convictions due to concerns the judge had made improper rulings, including allowing a woman to testify who was not part of the case.
At a preliminary hearing in January this year, the former Hollywood mogul, who has cancer and heart issues, asked for an earlier date on account of his poor health, however, that was denied.
When the retrial was decided upon last year, Judge Farber also ruled that a separate charge concerning a third woman should be added to the case.
In September 2024, the unnamed woman filed allegations that Weinstein forced oral sex on her at a hotel in Manhattan in 2006.
Defence lawyers tried to get the charge thrown out, claiming prosecutors were only trying to bolster their case, but Judge Farber decided to incorporate it into the current retrial.
Weinstein denies all the allegations against him and claims any sexual contact was consensual.
Why won't he be released?
Even if the retrial ends in not guilty verdicts on all three counts, Weinstein will remain behind bars at Rikers Island.
This is because he was sentenced for a second time in February 2023 after being convicted of raping an actor in a Los Angeles hotel room in 2013.
He was also found guilty of forcible oral copulation and sexual penetration by a foreign object in relation to the same woman, named only in court as Jane Doe 1.
The judge ruled that the 16-year sentence should be served after the 23-year one imposed in New York.
Weinstein's lawyers are appealing this sentence - but for now, the 16 years behind bars still stand.
Has #MeToo made a difference - and what's changed?
"MeToo was another way of women testifying about sexual violence and harassment," Dr Jane Meyrick, associate professor in health psychology at the University of West England (UWE), tells Sky News.
"It exposed the frustration around reporting cases and showed the legal system was not built to give women justice - because they just gave up on it and started saying it online instead.
"That was hugely symbolic - because most societies are built around the silencing of sexual violence and harassment."
After #MeToo went viral in 2017, the statute of limitation on sexual assault cases was extended in several US states, giving victims more time to come forward, and there has been some reform of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), which were regularly used by Weinstein.
This has resulted in more women speaking out and an increased awareness of gender-based violence, particularly among women, who are less inclined to tolerate any form of harassment, according to Professor Alison Phipps, a sociologist specialising in gender at Newcastle University.
"There's been an increase in capacity to handle reports in some organisations and institutions - and we've seen a lot of high-profile men brought down," she says.
"But the #MeToo movement has focused on individual men and individual cases - rather than the culture that allows the behaviour to continue.
"It's been about naming and shaming and 'getting rid' of these bad men - by firing them from their jobs or creating new crimes to be able to send more of them to prison - not dealing with the problem at its root."
Dr Meyrick, who wrote the book #MeToo For Women And Men: Understanding Power Through Sexual Harassment, gives the example of the workplace and the stereotype of "bumping the perp", or perpetrator.
"HR departments are still not designed to protect workers - they're built to suppress and make things go away." As a result, she says, men are often "quietly moved on" with "no real accountability".
The same is true in schools, Prof Phipps adds, where she believes concerns around the popularity among young boys of self-proclaimed misogynist and influencer Andrew Tate are being dealt with too "punitively".
"The message is 'we don't talk about Andrew Tate here' and 'you shouldn't be engaging with him'," she says. "But what we should be doing is asking boys and young men: 'why do you like him?', 'what's going on here?' - that deeper conversation is missing," she says.
Have high-profile celebrity cases helped?
Both experts agree they will have inevitably empowered some women to come forward.
But they stress they are often "nothing like" most other cases of sexual violence or harassment, which makes drawing comparisons "dangerous".
Referencing the Weinstein case in the US and Gisele Pelicot 's in France, Dr Meyrick says: "They took multiple people over a very long period of time to reach any conviction - a lot of people's experiences are nothing like that."
Prof Phipps adds: "They can create an idea that it's only 'real' rape if it's committed by a serial sex offender - and not every person who perpetrates sexual harm is a serial offender."
Part of her research has focused on 'lad culture' in the UK and associated sexual violence at universities.
She says: "A lot of that kind of violence happens in social spaces, where there are drugs and alcohol and young people thrown together who don't know where the boundaries are.
"That doesn't absolve them of any responsibility - but comparing those 'lads' to Harvey Weinstein seems inappropriate."
Dr Meyrick says most victims she has spoken to through her research "wouldn't go down the legal route" - and prosecution and conviction rates are still extremely low.
"Most don't try for justice. They just want to be believed and heard - that's what's important and restorative," she says.
But specialist services that can support victims in that way are underfunded - and not enough is being done to change attitudes through sex education and employment policy, she warns.
"Until we liberate men from the masculine roles they're offered by society - where objectification of women is normalised as banter - they will remain healthy sons of the patriarchy.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Jury resumes deliberations in Harvey Weinstein sex crimes retrial
Jury resumes deliberations in Harvey Weinstein sex crimes retrial

Western Telegraph

time27 minutes ago

  • Western Telegraph

Jury resumes deliberations in Harvey Weinstein sex crimes retrial

The panel, which was handed the case on Thursday morning, has requested to hear a readback of some testimony from two of Weinstein's accusers, as well as to see medical records from one of those women. The jury of seven women and five men is considering two counts of criminal sex act and one count of rape against the 73-year-old Oscar-winning movie producer, with the criminal sex act charges the higher-degree felonies. Harvey Weinstein has denied all the charges against him (Jefferson Siegel /The New York Times via AP, Pool/PA) Weinstein has pleaded not guilty. Sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein propelled the #MeToo movement in 2017. He was eventually convicted of sex crimes in New York and California, but the New York conviction was overturned last year, leading to the retrial before a new jury and a different judge. Jurors heard more than five weeks of evidence, including lengthy testimony from three accusers.

Donald Trump's new anti-terror chief is a former gardener born after 9/11
Donald Trump's new anti-terror chief is a former gardener born after 9/11

Metro

time34 minutes ago

  • Metro

Donald Trump's new anti-terror chief is a former gardener born after 9/11

Meet Thomas Fugate, former gardener, supermarket assistant and now, the man reportedly tasked by Donald Trump with tackling US extremism. At the mere age of 22, Fugate was born after the 9/11 Al-Qaeda attacks – but he has just been handed one of the most complex jobs in American national security. It is the kind of a career jump that raises an eyebrow even under the shock-and-awe tactics within the Trump administration. The recent graduate of the University of Texas at San Antonio is currently heading up the Centre for Prevention Programmes and Partnerships at the Department for Homeland Security (DHS), as first reported by ProPublica. He landed a position on the president's campaign in 2024, and was later hired by DHS in February. Also known as CP3, the division within DHS plays a vital role supporting nationwide efforts to combat terrorism. After it was established in 2021, it has handed out around $90 million in funding to organisations working to prevent hate-fuelled violence. CP3 saw its staff reduced by approximately three-quarters during the early months of Trump's second term in office. It is one of the reasons why Fugate's appointment as a special assistant in the division is so jaw-dropping. One counterterrorism researcher who has worked with CP3 officials for years said it sounds 'like putting the intern in charge'. They added: 'Maybe he is a wunderkind. Maybe he is Doogie Howser and has everything at 21 years old, or whatever he is, to lead the office. But that's not likely the case.' According to his LinkedIn page – which has been deleted as the story of his promotion gathered heat – he has almost no experience in this field. Before his promotion, he was working as a neighborhood gardener just five years ago and in a supermarket as recently as August 2023. Fugate interned at the Heritage Foundation, the think tank behind Project 2025, and for Texas Representatives Terry Wilson and Steve Allison. His Instagram account, which has also been made private in the last 48 hours, shows his long-term support for Trump. More Trending A caption of a picture of Fugate snapped at a Trump rally read: 'There ain't no party like a Republican Party, and you can quote me on that one. 'You will truly never meet a more unique, interesting, enthusiastic, and patriotic group of people in one place that at the Republican National Convention, I can tell you that.' A statement from DHS said about the promotion: 'Due to his success, he has been temporarily given additional leadership responsibilities in the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships office. 'This is a credit to his work ethic and success on the job.' Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Donald Trump and Elon Musk might make peace – but it will never last MORE: Ireland has a US border — it could help travellers nervous about Trump's America MORE: Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein's messy history amid fallout with Elon Musk

Prince William's two-word comment was 'first sign of tension'
Prince William's two-word comment was 'first sign of tension'

Daily Mirror

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mirror

Prince William's two-word comment was 'first sign of tension'

Prince William and Prince Harry were already at loggerheads just a month after the Duke of Sussex married Meghan Markle, with the 'fab four' meeting to clear the air Just one month on from the wedding of Prince Harry and American actor Meghan Markle, cracks in the bond between the Duke of Sussex and his brother Prince William were already becoming evident. In what seemed a move to resolve their differences, June 2018 saw the brothers and their spouses meet at Kensington Palace. Yet, looming over this urgent summit was Prince William's sharp two-word remark that, with hindsight, showed the growing rift within royal r elations. ‌ Royal expert Camilla Tominey points out that Meghan's appointment as the fourth patron of the Royal Foundation led to conflict, revealing "how much tension there was between them". ‌ The dynamics are explored in the upcoming Channel 5 dramatisation, 'Meghan vs Kate: The Meeting That Changed the Monarchy', where Talk TV's Royal Editor Sarah Hewson recounts: "It was a late afternoon in June 2018, Harry and Meghan were heading over to Apartment 1A at Kensington Palace for 'clear the air' talks with William and Kate." Once viewed as the modern face of the monarchy, the unity of the once-dubbed "fab four" was shattered by the outcomes of this pivotal discussion, reports Cambridgeshire Live. Whispers had emerged that Meghan's off-camera conduct had rankled a member of the Kensington Palace team, with Kate reportedly taking issue with the former TV star's attitude towards the palace staff. Royal biographer Andrew Morton has suggested that Catherine may have felt "threatened" by Meghan's presence. With a successful acting career spanning over 15 years, Meghan brought a level of confidence and outspokenness rarely seen among Royal wives. ‌ Tensions were also brewing between the two brothers. In February 2018, during a public announcement that Meghan would become the fourth patron of the Royal Foundation, the four royals were asked if working so closely as a family led to disagreements. William responded with a resounding: "Oh, yes!" Harry agreed, adding: "They come so thick and fast. Working as family does have its challenges, of course it does. But we're stuck together for the rest of our lives." However, their professional collaboration wouldn't last much longer. Sarah Hewson suggests that royal journalists should have picked up on the tension between them: "Clearly things were not right between these two couples." ‌ In Tina Brown's book 'The Palace Papers: Inside the House of Windsor-the Truth and the Turmoil', she highlights that public appearance as a significant turning point. She notes how Meghan "fluently" spoke in the interview, passionately advocating for causes that, while commendable, didn't align with the Royal Foundation's message. Tina described it as "a fashionable cause anointed by Hollywood and sure to make headlines," adding: "It was an awkward dynamic. It was later decided the Fab Four would not play onstage together as a band again." ‌ She observed that Kate seemed to be eclipsed by Meghan's presence: "When it was Kate's moment to speak, she was strikingly less articulate, as well as brief." Following this, the two couples would only make joint public appearances during larger Royal events, such as the Commonwealth Day services or the Trooping the Colour ceremony. It wasn't until nearly two years later that Harry and Meghan would publicly declare their intention to "step back as 'senior' members" of the Royal Family, planning to divide their time between the UK and the US, and pursue financial independence. Yet, it was William's succinct remark that seemed to signal the onset of a shift within the monarchy as it was known at the time.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store