Harvey Weinstein could be sentenced next month, but only if there's no retrial on an unresolved rape charge
Manhattan Judge Curtis Farber said Wednesday he could sentence Weinstein on Sept. 30 – but only if there's no retrial on a rape charge that the last jury failed to reach a verdict on.
Weinstein, 73, was convicted in June of forcing oral sex on TV and movie production assistant and producer Miriam Haley in 2006. The charge carries a possible sentence of up to 25 years in prison.
At the same time, the jury acquitted him of forcing oral sex on another woman, one-time model Kaja Sokola, but couldn't decide a charge that he raped hairstylist and actor Jessica Mann in 2013.
Manhattan prosecutors told Farber that they're ready to take Weinstein to trial for a third time on the rape charge, which is punishable by up to four years in prison. That's less time than Weinstein has already served.
Mann is on board to testify again, they said.
Prosecutors requested a January trial date, citing witness availability and their own caseload. Farber balked at that, saying a January date is too far away and conflicts with another, unrelated trial he's already scheduled. He proposed having the trial in the fall.
'The case needs to be tried this year,' Farber said.
Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala agreed, telling Farber he'd prefer a trial at 'the earliest the court can accommodate us.'
Assistant District Attorney Nicole Blumberg said she would ask Mann and other witnesses about their availability for a trial in the fall.
If a fall trial happens, it would likely put Weinstein's high-profile #MeToo case back in court as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is in the final throes of his reelection bid.
Bragg, a first-term Democrat who made prosecuting sex crimes cases a priority, has expressed satisfaction with Weinstein's conviction on a criminal sex act charge in the Haley assault and has been resolute in wanting the Oscar-winning studio boss retried on the Mann rape charge.
'The jury was not able to reach a conclusion as to Ms. Mann, and she deserves that,' Bragg said in June. 'This work, first and foremost, is about the survivors and that's why we're prepared to go forward.'
Aidala told reporters outside court that, in his view, it's on prosecutors to resolve the rape charge – either by dropping it and clearing the way for sentencing, or promptly taking it to trial again.
Weinstein sat in court in a wheelchair while wearing a blue suit and black-rimmed glasses. The 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Shakespeare in Love' producer is committed to fighting the rape charge at another trial, Aidala said, though the lawyer didn't rule out the possibility of reaching a deal with prosecutors to end the case.
For now, the trial date remains unresolved, leaving Weinstein's possible Sept. 30 sentencing in limbo.
At Weinstein's first trial in 2020, jurors convicted him of raping Mann and forcing oral sex on production assistant and producer Haley.
Then an appeals court overturned those convictions and sent the case back for retrial because of legal issues involving other women's testimony.
This spring, a new jury convicted him again of sexually assaulting Haley and acquitted him of doing the same to another woman who wasn't part of the first trial. But amid fractious deliberations, the majority-female jury got stuck on the charge related to Mann.
Mann has testified that she also had a consensual, on-and-off relationship with the then-married Weinstein, but that she told him 'I don't want to do this' as he cornered her in the hotel room. She said he persevered with advances and demands until she 'just gave up.'
Weinstein already stands convicted of sex crimes in California. He denies all of the allegations against him.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sean Kingston jailed
Sean Kingston has been sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison. The Beautiful Girls hitmaker - whose real name is Kisean Paul Anderson - and his mother, Janice Turner, were found guilty of five counts of wire fraud in March following a federal trial and faced up to 20 years in jail for each charge. But on Friday (15.08.25), Sean apologised in front of Judge David Leibowitz and said he had learned a lesson, and though his attorney asked the 35-year-old star be allowed to leave and surrender at a later date for health reasons, the judge refused and he was immediately taken into custody. His attorney, Zeljka Bozanic, told Entertainment Weekly the musician is taking the situation "as a learning experience". The lawyer said in a statement: "We respect the Court's decision and the judicial process. We are content that the Court did not go with the government's request of five years and sentenced Sean below the sentencing guidelines instead. It is important to note that most of the restitution in this case was paid back, even before these charges were brought. "Sean is taking this as a learning experience and will continue moving forward in a positive direction. We are actively reviewing all available options, including potential appeals, to ensure his rights are fully protected." Janice - who had previously pleaded guilty to bank fraud for stealing $160,000 and served more than a year in prison - was sentenced to five years behind bars last month. The mother and son had denied allegations of falsely claiming they had sent bank transfers for luxury items worth more than $1 million but were found guilty in March. After the verdict was reached, Sean was placed on home detention, though he has to meet bond requirements, including a $200,000 surety bond in cash, as well as putting up a relative's $500,000 house. However, Janice was reminded into federal custody and was taken away by US Marshals as her son cried. He told them: "Protect my mother.' While Sean opted not to testify on his own behalf, his mother did, and the judge explained she was remanded as a flight risk in part due to her testimony. He said Janice - who has similar past convictions - had shown she was the "fixer, the nerve centre" and in control of the fraud scheme but her son's defence depicted him as "a child" with no knowledge of finances. Several alleged victims had claimed to have been swindled out of items including a bulletproof Cadillac, a huge TV and expensive watches, and all items had been seized in a raid on Sean's home. The United States Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, previously explained the rapper and his mother's charges stemmed from their alleged involvement in "a scheme to defraud victim sellers of high-end specialty vehicles, jewellery, and other goods purchased by the defendants through the use of fraudulent documents." The office went on to state the pair "unjustly enriched themselves by falsely representing that they had executed bank wire or other monetary payment transfers as payment for vehicles, jewellery, and other goods purchased by the defendants, when in fact no such bank wire or other monetary payment transfers had been executed by the purported banks, and thereafter the defendants retained or attempted to retain the vehicles, jewellery and other goods despite non-payment. Through the execution of this scheme, the defendants obtained in excess of $1 million in property." The pair were accused of having stolen almost $500,000 in jewellery, more than $200,000 from Bank of America, more than $100,000 from First Republic Bank, $160,000 from a Cadillac Escalade dealer and $86,000 from a maker of customised beds. At the time of his arrest last year, the musician was serving two years probation for trafficking stolen property.
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
How a unique California law puts the Menendez brothers' fate into the hands of one politician
After serving several decades in prison, Erik and Lyle Menendez are facing the possibility of freedom as the California Board of Parole Hearings this week considers whether they've adequately atoned for the 1989 murder of their parents. While this may seem like the final moment in the long and captivating saga, refueled by several attempts by the brothers' lawyers and the former district attorney to achieve what they say is a more modern version of justice, the brothers have one more potential roadblock – California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The governor holds an unusual power that allows him to 'affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the parole authority on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider' for someone convicted of murder and sentenced to an indeterminate term, according to state law. While the governor is required to follow certain parameters, he is given broad oversight on the decision. The little-known and rare ability, established in the 1980s, looms large over the brothers as they prepare to explain to a parole panel why they should be released. It's not clear how Newsom is leaning, and his office did not answer a question from CNN about his potential decision, but here's what we know about the power that gives him ultimate authority to decide on the brothers' freedom. The governor's ability to veto the parole board's decision dates to the 1980s, when public reaction toward a now-forgotten case grabbed headlines – as well as the attention of voters. William Archie Fain, convicted of the 1967 killing of a teenage boy and rape of two teenage girls, was released on parole in 1983 to much outrage from the public, according to the Los Angeles Times. After getting parole, he continued to be accused and found guilty of other crimes, ranging from assault to peeping. Then-Gov. George Deukmejian tried to prevent his release, but state courts ruled Fain had to be freed. In response, the California legislature passed Proposition 89, which gave voters the option to allow the governor power to modify the parole board's decision. While there were concerns it would unjustly give a politician too much power, many were more worried about the potential for violence during a tough-on-crime era. 'Proposition 89 will not politicize the parole process, but it will provide an extra measure of safety to law-abiding citizens by giving the Governor the authority to block the parole of criminals who still pose a significant threat to society,' Deukmejian and a state senator wrote in a 1988 voter information guide arguing for the proposition. 'Prop 89 will correct a weakness in the state's parole system and further strengthen California's system of justice.' The proposition ended up passing with 55% of the vote, according to the UC Law San Francisco Repository. The only other state that gives its governor the power to veto parole grants is Oklahoma, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. The proposition does limit the window of reversal to 30 days, meaning if the parole board votes to release the brothers, Newsom has 30 days from when the decision is released to change it. Since the proposition's passing, the power bestowed on the California governor has been curbed slightly by court rulings over the past two decades, said Christopher Hawthorne, clinical professor of law and director of the Juvenile Innocence & Fair Sentencing Clinic at Loyola Law School. In one, the California Supreme Court ruled the governor must reasonably assess the defendant's risk against public safety, Hawthorne said. Another ruling several years later allowed the governor to consider whether the defendant had insight into their crime, he added. While the power has been modified, the governor still has room to a make a decision in the Menendez case as long as it follows these guidelines. Since the proposition was added to the California state constitution, governors have often used it to deny parole in cases during the 1990s and early 2000s, when tough-on-crime policies were more popular, according to Hawthorne. 'In the mid-'80s, California passed law after law after law, frequently by initiative, that made it much harder to get anyone out of prison. And that flow only reversed in about 2012 or 2013 when Gov. (Jerry) Brown was in office,' he said. 'For a long, long time, it was almost impossible to get parole, get found suitable for parole, and if you did get found suitable, the governor reversed a lot of parole grants at that time.' Hawthorne cited the case of Leslie Van Houten, a former Charles Manson follower and convicted murderer, as an illustration of when governors repeatedly denied parole despite the board approving it. Newsom also denied parole for Sirhan Sirhan, who assassinated US Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, with the governor citing Sirhan's 'refusal to accept responsibility for his crime' and 'lack of insight and accountability,' among other reasons. 'He does not understand, let alone have the skills to manage, the complex risks of his self-created notoriety. He cannot be safely released from prison because he has not mitigated his risk of fomenting further political violence,' Newsom wrote in a 2022 Los Angeles Times op-ed explaining his decision. 'Every governor is fairly allergic to releasing high-profile defendants,' Hawthorne said, though 'California has done really well in the last 10 years or so' in increasing the availability of parole overall. 'It was something that was not available, essentially, during the (Pete) Wilson, (Gray) Davis or (Arnold) Schwarzenegger administration, with very, very few exceptions,' he said. The three governors served successively from 1991, but starting in 2011, 'Jerry Brown's administration and Gavin Newsom's administration have done infinitely better,' he said. While the Menendez brothers have some elements working in their favor, such as family and public support, as well as encouraging recommendations from prison and corrections officials, some have passionately argued against their release. Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman hotly contested their potential resentencing earlier this year, despite his predecessor, George Gascón, requesting it. The previous district attorney, Hochman said in a statement, 'did not examine or consider whether the Menendez brothers have exhibited full insight and taken complete responsibility for their crimes.' His statement also cites the two points Newsom can consider in a potential reversal of a parole board decision. To help make his case, Hochman created a chart comparing factors considered by the parole board for Sirhan and each Menendez brother. Some of the factors include time served in prison, their education level before and during incarceration, and the gravity of the offense. Since Newsom denied Sirhan's parole based on the factors laid out in the chart, Hochman argued, the Menendez brothers definitely don't qualify for release as the they have more prison rules violations and haven't exhibited full insight into their crimes. Hochman has said the brothers lied when they claimed the motive for killing their parents was due to abuse they faced from their father. He has previously said he believes evidence to corroborate the abuse allegations is 'extremely lacking;' earlier this year he said his review of the case showed the killings were premeditated and not the result of a threat from their parents. Although a judge ultimately ruled to resentence the brothers earlier this year – which is why they now have a parole hearing – the positions taken by Hochman's office could still factor into the governor's decision on parole. The situation is definitely a 'political hot potato,' Hawthorne said, though the overwhelming support for release from family members could heavily weigh the decision. More than 20 Menendez relatives have banded together over the past year to advocate for release, saying they believe the brothers' abuse claims and that society's understanding of childhood sexual abuse has changed dramatically since their conviction in 1996. They also say the brothers have grown and tried to help others through rehabilitative programs in prison. Anamaria Baralt, a cousin of the Menendez brothers and leader of the coalition, told reporters last October that 'If Lyle and Erik's case were heard today, with the understanding we now have about abuse and PTSD, there is no doubt in my mind that their sentencing would have been very different.' She also read a statement from Terry Baralt, Jose Menendez's sister: 'I implore the district attorney's office to end our prolonged suffering and release Lyle and Erik back to our family. Thirty-five years is such a long time. My prayer is that I live long enough to see my nephews again and to hug them once more.' Oftentimes, a victim's family opposes release, Hawthorne said, making this a unique situation. 'It's interesting in this case, given that Jose and Kitty Menendez's family are largely in favor of both Eric and Lyle getting out – those voices will matter, and they will be brought to bear in that 30-day window when the governor has the case,' he said. The family will be able to express their opinions to the governor's office through calls, letters and other documents, in an attempt to sway his opinion. 'I can't think of a governor who wouldn't be sensitive to that,' Hawthorne said.
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
American haute couture documentary up for accolades
American haute couture documentary short finalist in two film festivals LONG BEACH , CA, UNITED STATES, August 16, 2025 / / -- Monica Lawrence's directoral debut and first offering from her production company Mouse millinery works entertainment llc , ' American haute couture' is now a finalist in two film festivals. East Village New York film fest and AIMAFF. This documentary short about the history of the ribbon skirt native American women make and is a love letter to sewers. It also takes a look at the lack of any national dress in the USA. It's an unwavering look at the prejudice that holds back native American kraftworks from receiving the respect other artists garner. It premiered at the Idaho panhandle film fest and is now up for accolades in two film festivals. This has warmed the heart of the director and Zuni tribal member Monica Lawrence. " I'm so grateful to those that have enjoyed my wee film. I hope it has an impact on those who watch it with an open heart and mind.' Monica Lawrence is the president of her own production company, one of seven native American women owned production companies. She is also a Sagaftra member and has work in background for television and films. This film was made on a modest budget and with the help of her husband Christopher Lawrence camera man, who has since passed away. They bravely fought homelessness due to ageism together. She has kept the flame of this project alive for the both of them. This collaborative project was edited by a Scottish team. They also support her artistic endeavors. To date no native American women has ever won an Oscar for a short documentary. This could be the breakthrough film that ends this. 'American haute couture' is exclusive to Film freeway. Monica Lawrence plans on posting this on social media after it is through the festivals. Monica Lawrence Mouse millinery works entertainment/ +1 562-528-1625 email us here Visit us on social media: Facebook Legal Disclaimer: EIN Presswire provides this news content 'as is' without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
