After alleged juror threats, jury finds Harvey Weinstein guilty of sexual assault
1 of 5 | A jury on Wednesday found former Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein guilty on one count of sexual assault but innocent on another count and will continue deliberating a rape charge on Thursday. Pool Photo by Curtis Means/UPI | License Photo
June 11 (UPI) -- Former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein is guilty of sexual assault, a New York jury determined Wednesday amid courtroom chaos when a juror allegedly threatened another.
The Manhattan Supreme Court jury of seven women and five men found Weinstein, 73, guilty of sexually assaulting Miriam Haley but acquitted him of the same charge regarding Kaja Sokola, the New York Daily News reported.
The jury delivered the split verdict following five days of deliberations.
Still to be decided is a charge of third-degree rape of accuser Jessica Mann, who said Weinstein raped her in 2013.
Haley and Sokola said Weinstein performed oral sex on them with force and without their permission in separate instances in 2006.
A courtroom outburst preceded the reading of Wednesday's verdicts, when a juror reportedly yelled at another: "I'll meet you outside one day."
The outburst spurred Weinstein's legal team to request a mistrial, including attorney Arthur Aidala, who accused the juror of criminal "menacing and harassment."
Weinstein sat in a wheelchair during the six-week trial after recently undergoing emergency surgery on his heart in September.
He also was diagnosed with bone marrow cancer in October.
After the outburst inside the courtroom, Weinstein told Justice Curtis Farber the jury's actions make it impossible for him to get a fair trial.
"We've heard threats. We've heard intimidation. We've heard fights," he said. "This is not right for me, the person that's on trial here."
The jury foreman told Farber some jurors were "attacking" each other and said, "I can't go back in there with the other jurors."
The foreman first notified the judge of problems among jurors on Monday and said the situation "isn't very good."
Farber asked the jury to deliver its partial verdict and told the jurors to go home early to give them time away from each other before resuming deliberating the remaining charge on Thursday.
The guilty verdict for sexual assault could put Weinstein in prison for up to 25 years, minus time already served after a 2020 conviction on the charge.
Weinstein has maintained his innocence and said all sexual encounters were consensual.
A jury trial in 2020 found Weinstein guilty on all charges against him, but an appellate court last year overturned the verdict due to testimony by witnesses regarding unrelated events and allegations.
Weinstein co-founded Miramax and won an Oscar for producing "Shakespeare in Love."
He also produced award-winning films "Pulp Fiction," "The English Patient" and "Good Will Hunting," among others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Federal judge weighs National Guard, Marine Corps deployments in LA
California National Guard troops and protesters face off at the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on Wednesday as Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids continued for a sixth day. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo June 12 (UPI) -- A federal judge on Thursday might rule on whether or not the Trump administration lawfully deployed National Guard and Marine Corps troops to Los Angeles. U.S. District Court for Northern California Judge Charles Breyer is hearing arguments for and against the federal government deploying troops to quell violence amid Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities in Los Angeles. California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday sought the federal court's intervention to stop the deployments and remove the troops from Los Angeles. Breyer denied Newsom's motion for a temporary restraining order and scheduled Thursday's hearing regarding the governor's motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the troop deployments. More than 4,000 National Guardsmen and about 700 Marines have been deployed to Los Angeles to prevent violence while protecting federal buildings and ICE agents as they enforce unpopular and controversial federal immigration laws. Newsom did not call up the National Guard and said the Trump administration did not ask him to do so. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass on Tuesday announced an ongoing curfew from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. PDT in a downtown area that is bordered by interstates 5, 10 and 110. The Los Angeles Police Department on Wednesday arrested 71 people for failure to disperse, seven for violating the curfew, two for assaulting a police officer with a deadly weapon and one for resisting arrest. Also on Thursday, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., was removed from a late-morning news conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Padilla interrupted the news conference and demanded that Noem answer questions, but event security removed him. Noem said Padilla's interruption was "inappropriate" and said she would speak with him after concluding the news conference. Meanwhile, protests continue with several scheduled in California and 28 in total in locales across the nation, NBC News reported. Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Thursday announced he called up 5,000 National Guardsmen and deployed 2,000 Texas Public Safety troopers to maintain peace and arrest those engaged in criminal acts as anti-ICE protests are expected to continue at least through the weekend. "Anyone engaging in acts of violence or damaging property will be arrested and held accountable to the full extent of the law," Abbott said in a news release. "Don't mess with Texas -- and don't mess with Texas law enforcement," he added.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Harvey Weinstein Gets Mistrial on Rape Charge After Threats to Jury Foreperson
Harvey Weinstein's rape charge ended in mistrial after the jury foreperson refused to return to the jury room Thursday after saying he faced threats from other jurors. The 12-person jury in Weinstein's trial had found him guilty Wednesday of one count of a criminal sexual act against former Project Runway assistant Miriam Haley, but not guilty of the other count of a criminal sexual act against former model Kaja Sokola. More from The Hollywood Reporter Harvey Weinstein Trial Witnesses React to Mixed Verdict, See Win for #MeToo Movement Harvey Weinstein Receives Mixed Partial Verdict as Deliberations Heat Up in Criminal Case Jurors Raise Concerns About Harvey Weinstein Deliberations After the mistrial was declared, prosecutors said Thursday that they plan to retry Weinstein on the rape charge, related to aspiring actress Jessica Mann, and that 'she is ready and willing and wants to retry this count.' A July 2 hearing has been set on that charge. Weinstein faced one charge of rape in the third degree and two charges of criminal sexual act in the first degree, which is the higher felony charge and carries a maximum prison sentence of 25 years. The rape charge carries a sentence of up to four years. On Wednesday, the jury had yet to reach a verdict on rape in the third degree, but jurors were sent home midday amid concerns about fighting and tensions in the jury room. They had been in the midst of their fifth day of deliberations. The jury foreperson had sent a note Wednesday afternoon asking to speak to the judge and then told the attorneys and Judge Curtis Farber: 'I feel afraid inside there. I can't be inside there.' He added that other jurors had been trying to get him to change his decision, and, when he had refused, had said 'Oh we will see you outside,' and that he was concerned for his own safety. When the foreperson was asked Thursday if he would return to the jury room, he told the court, 'No, I'm sorry.' However, Farber spoke with the others jurors after the mistrial was declared Thursday and said 'they were extremely disappointed' that deliberations had not continued and that 'They don't understand why the foreperson bowed out.' Jury tensions had reached such a fever pitch Wednesday that Weinstein himself addressed the court, urging the judge for a mistrial. His request was denied at the time. 'This is not right for me, the person who is on trial here,' Weinstein said Wednesday. 'This is my life that's on the line, and you know what? It's not fair. It's simple. It's just not fair.' The foreperson, who is charged with speaking on behalf of the jury, then returned to court after the jury had been dismissed Wednesday and implied that he did not want to go back into the deliberation room Thursday. He returned to court, but was being kept separately from the other jurors Thursday morning. On Monday morning, the foreperson had also asked to speak to the judge and said that jurors were considering elements from Weinstein's past that weren't being used as evidence in the trial and weren't part of the charged crimes. Another juror, who was juror No. 7 on this case and the youngest on the jury, had asked to address the court twice Friday, first saying he had heard jurors discussing another juror in the courtroom elevators, and then asking to be excused from the jury as he did not feel the process was 'fair,' while staring at the defense table. 'If you're a deliberating juror you have to be punched in the face in order for it to rise to the level of a real threat,' Weinstein's attorney, Arthur Aidala said Thursday, while urging the judge to call for mistrial before the juror entered. 'It's insane in the membrane, insane on the brain.' All of this comes after Weinstein's 2020 rape and criminal sexual assault conviction was overturned in April 2024 after the court of appeals found the trial prejudiced Weinstein with improper rulings, including allowing women to testify about allegations that were not part of the case. In the 2020 trial, Weinstein received a mixed verdict with the jury finding Weinstein guilty of the crimes against Haley and Mann, but also acquitting Weinstein of first-degree rape and predatory sexual assault related to other women. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg pursued the retrial of Weinstein shortly after his conviction was overturned. In this trial, Mann had testified that she had first met Weinstein around 2013 at a party in Hollywood. After later attending his Oscars party, Mann said she was invited by Weinstein up to his hotel room, where he said he wanted to give Mann and her friend a script for Vampire Academy. There, Weinstein performed unwanted oral sex on her. After that incident, Mann said she decided to embark on a relationship with him. 'I just thought it would take the pain away,' Mann said on the stand. The charge relates to an alleged incident with Weinstein in a Manhattan hotel in March 2013. At the time, Mann was visiting New York City with friends and said she had arranged to meet Weinstein for breakfast, along with her friends, but found that he had arrived early at her hotel and was in the process of booking a hotel room. Despite her protests, Weinstein booked the room and she followed him upstairs. Once there, she claims he repeatedly held the door shut as she tried to leave and said she didn't want to do this, while he grabbed her arms and told her to undress. She did so, and said Weinstein then went to the bathroom and injected himself with a substance which she later found was to treat erectile dysfunction, and then performed unwanted penetrative sex on her. More to come. Best of The Hollywood Reporter Most Anticipated Concert Tours of 2025: Beyoncé, Billie Eilish, Kendrick Lamar & SZA, Sabrina Carpenter and More Hollywood's Most Notable Deaths of 2025 Hollywood's Highest-Profile Harris Endorsements: Taylor Swift, George Clooney, Bruce Springsteen and More
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court restores FBI 'wrong house' raid lawsuit
June 12 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court brought back a lawsuit against the FBI over a mishandled home raid from 2017 in Atlanta on Thursday. A unanimous decision moved the case over an incident in which federal agents broke through the door of Trina Martin's home with a search warrant at the wrong address, back to a lower court to look at it again to see if the lawsuit can move forward. Martin sued the government for assault and battery, false arrest and other violations, after the FBI entered her home, where she lived with her then-boyfriend Toi Cliatt and 7-year-old son Gabe Watson, believing it was the home of an alleged violent gang member. The suit alleged that agents entered the home with their guns drawn and set of a flash bang that startled the family and caused Gabe to scream. The Supreme Court ruled that a federal judge in Atlanta and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were wrong to dismiss the suit, ordering them to determine whether the discretionary-function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act in 2019, under which the suit was filed, would allow the case to go forward. The justices did not answer the question, but allowed the plaintiffs to argue it in the lower courts. "It is work enough for the day to answer the questions we took this case to resolve, clear away the two faulty assumptions on which that court has relied in the past and redirect it to the proper inquiry," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote. "We readily acknowledge that different lower courts have taken different views of the discretionary function exception," Gorsuch continued."We acknowledge, too, that important questions surround whether and under what circumstances that exception may ever foreclose a suit like this one." During the raid Martin's former boyfriend was handcuffed and she wanted to go to her son. She wasn't allowed to move and the 7-year-old woke up to see agents with guns in his room. After the agents realized their mistake they left the house and their supervisor came back to apologize. The FBI had an arrest warrant out for Joseph Riley. After they left Martin's house, FBI raided Riley's house and arrested him. Pattrick Jaicomo, Martin's lawyer in a statement said the court was right to revive the Martin family's case "The Court's decision today acknowledged how far the circuit courts have strayed from the purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is to ensure remedies to the victims of federal harms-intentional and negligent alike," he said. "We look forward to continuing this fight with the Martins in the Eleventh Circuit and making it easier for everyday people to hold the government accountable for its mistaken and intentional violations of individual rights."
