Jury to start deliberating in Harvey Weinstein rape retrial
By Jack Queen and Jody Godoy
NEW YORK (Reuters) -Jurors in Harvey Weinstein's rape and sexual assault retrial will begin deliberating on Thursday in a Manhattan court, weighing the credibility of the former movie mogul's three accusers against the defense's efforts to brand them liars.
The Academy Award-winning producer and Miramax studio co-founder is accused of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann in 2013 and assaulting two other women in 2006 and 2002. Weinstein, who has denied ever having non-consensual sex or assaulting anyone, has pleaded not guilty. The trial began in April.
Weinstein, 73, is on trial for a second time after a New York state appeals court threw out his conviction in April 2024. He faces up to 25 years in prison for two counts of criminal sexual acts and up to four years for one count of rape.
He is already serving a 16-year prison sentence after being found guilty in December 2022 of rape in California.
Two days of closing arguments wrapped up on Wednesday, and state Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber will instruct the 12 jurors on the law before handing them the case.
Prosecutors with the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg have portrayed Weinstein as a serial predator who promised career advancement in Hollywood to women, only to then coax them into private settings where he attacked them.
'He held the golden ticket, the chance to make it or not. He made each of these women feel small, no match for the power broker of Hollywood,' prosecutor Nicole Blumberg told jurors on Wednesday.
Weinstein's defense lawyers have said his encounters with the women were consensual and accused them of lying about being raped after failing to make it big in Hollywood by sleeping with him.
"They are lying about what happened. Not about everything, but about a small slice - just enough to turn their regret, their buyers' remorse, into criminality," defense lawyer Arthur Aidala told jurors Tuesday.
Weinstein was convicted of rape by a Manhattan jury in February 2020, but the New York Court of Appeals threw out the conviction and ordered a new trial, citing errors by the trial judge. Weinstein had been serving a 23-year sentence in a prison in upstate Rome, New York, when the conviction was overturned.
That conviction was a milestone for the #MeToo movement, which encouraged women to come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct by powerful men.
Weinstein has been held at New York City's Rikers Island jail since his conviction was overturned. He has had several health scares while being held at Rikers, and in September was rushed to a hospital for emergency heart surgery.
More than 100 women, including famous actresses, have accused Weinstein of misconduct. He has denied assaulting anyone or having non-consensual sex.
Miramax studio produced many hit movies in its heyday, including "Shakespeare in Love" and "Pulp Fiction."
Weinstein's own eponymous film studio filed for bankruptcy in March 2018, five months after the original sexual misconduct accusations became widely publicized.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sound Off: June 7, 2025
Sun Herald readers weigh in on local and national topics. My federal tax forms were filed on Feb. 6, and I was told the refund would take 'a few weeks.' Today is June 6, and still no refund. After repeatedly calling the 800 number, I personally drove to the local IRS office on Old Highway 49 in Gulfport. A security guard made me empty all my pockets and he frisked me. Then he sent me to the desk. The woman at the desk told me I had to call an 800 number to make an appointment. Is this any way to treat honest taxpayers? Orders and actions by the Trump Administration have been thwarted and obstructed by separate U.S. District Court judges around the country seven times in the past week alone. This was a publicly stated goal of left wing organizations during the election when it became clear that Trump would likely be elected. The American people are outraged by the blatant judicial overreach displayed by certain courts, issuing rulings far beyond their constitutional authority. This reckless abuse of power undermines the very foundation of our system of checks and balances and signals that parts of the judiciary have gone completely off the rails. If this continues unchecked, either the Supreme Court must intervene to restore order, or the people themselves will lose all confidence in the judiciary. Without accountability, even legitimate rulings on real crimes will be viewed with skepticism, threatening the rule of law itself. It matters not whether a judge is at the city level or a Supreme Court justice. Their job is to interpret the law and, ultimately, the constitution. Whether you, I or the president breaks the law, we are still subject to it and the ultimate law of the country, the constitution. I was wanting to give some information to the uninformed person who thinks law abiding citizens should be able to get full automatic weapons, since they say criminals have them. Law-abiding citizens already can get fully automatic weapons. They are just heavily regulated, limited in number, and very expensive. Criminals do not have them, and that is why we don't see them used in crimes. I apologize in advance for any harm caused by introducing facts and reality into your liberal echo chamber. The CDC says guns are the number one killer of children. Christians who claim to be pro-life need to really examine their position on gun safety regulations. How much money have you made betting on President Trump to flip-flop on tariffs? And if the answer is nothing, it's time to get on the train. Send your Sound Offs to soundoff@
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Christine Van Geyn: Do police have the right to peer at you in your car with a drone?
Can police use a drone with a zoom lens to peer into the interior of vehicles stopped at red lights? Can police enter a home's private driveway and look in the windows of vehicles? Can the government track the cellphone location data of millions of Canadians to track their movements? And can a private foreign company scour the internet collecting photos of Canadians for use in facial recognition technology that is sold to police? These questions are not hypotheticals; they are real live issues in Canadian law. We are living in the mass surveillance era. But many Canadians do not have a thorough understanding of how far surveillance goes, or what the limits on it are, or whether our legal protections are adequate. The police in Kingston, Ont., are ticketing drivers at red lights for merely touching or holding their cellphones based on evidence collected by a drone. The Supreme Court recently heard a case about police entering a private driveway and not just looking in a truck window, but opening the door and collecting evidence — all without a warrant. The Alberta Court of Kings Bench just considered a case involving the facial recognition technology of Clearview AI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian government was tracking the cellphone location data of 33 million Canadians. After the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act, the government ordered the freezing of bank accounts of a police-compiled 'blacklist' of demonstrators, which was distributed by the government to a variety of financial institutions and even lobby groups. What these cases are demonstrating is that we have entered the era of mass surveillance, and Canada's legal protections are inadequate. First, Canada's privacy legislation is outdated. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne has said we are at a 'pivotal time' for privacy rights in Canada. Former Ontario Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian has also called for updates to Canadian privacy laws, 'so they apply to all data, including anonymized data.' Much has changed since the current federal privacy legislation was drafted in the early 2000s, but efforts to modernize this law died when Parliament was prorogued. Second, when it comes to state intrusions, the concept of privacy may be inadequate. Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this right to mean the protection of a person's 'reasonable expectations of privacy' against state intrusions. The notion of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' has become a mantra in Section 8 jurisprudence. But some academics have said that in the era of mass surveillance, this guiding principle is an inadequate gatekeeper. In a lecture for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's new free course on privacy rights, Osgoode Hall Law professor François Tanguay-Renaud proposes a thought experiment that reveals the inadequacy of 'privacy' as an organizing principle. What if the police were recording people on the street, with drones following people and recording their movements as they went about their day, zooming in on their cellphones and recording their conversations? In such a scenario, where people are in plain view, privacy is an inadequate concept to limit what we all see intuitively as oppressive state conduct. At one time, this hypothetical might have been considered far-fetched. Today it is eerily similar to the Kingston police drone scenario. In Kingston, police are using a drone to take aerial images peering into cars and zooming in on cellphones. Those drivers do have reasonable expectations of privacy inside their cars, but what would limit this police conduct if they surveilled citizens on sidewalks or parks, where they were in plain view without those privacy expectations? A principled line must be drawn between things done in plain sight that police can view and constant surveillance using enhanced technology. It may not be possible to draw that line on the basis of the existence or not of 'reasonable expectations of privacy.' There are other values that could serve as guiding or informing principles for Section 8. There is nothing in the text of Section 8 that mandates the gatekeeper of the right be 'reasonable expectations of privacy' rather than another interest, like dignity, liberty, security, anonymity, public confidence in the administration of justice, and many more. Indeed, American jurisprudence has been moving away from the concept of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' as the sole guiding principle for their 4th Amendment. To meet the challenges of the surveillance era, it is well past time for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to update privacy laws. But as recent police conduct shows, it's time for our Section 8 jurisprudence to be revisited as well, to meet the emerging challenges of the surveillance state. National Post Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. Canadians who want to learn more about their privacy rights in Canada can sign up for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's free course at Opinion: In 2020 the world shut down, and Canadians lost their privacy rights Facial recognition tool used by RCMP deemed illegal mass surveillance of unwitting Canadians
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Brooklyn Center attorney suspended by Minnesota Supreme Court
The Minnesota Supreme Court has indefinitely suspended attorney Susan Shogren Smith, who authorities say filed legal challenges in the November 2020 election without permission of the plaintiffs. The suspension from practicing law came Thursday, on the heels of a petition for disciplinary action against Shogren Smith filed by the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility saying that she has conducted professional misconduct. The Brooklyn Center attorney was given a $10,000 sanction in 2021 after a judge found she 'bamboozled' voters into signing on as plaintiffs without their knowledge or permission to file legal challenges against the election of five congressional Democrats. Calls to Shogren Smith on Friday were not returned. The petition for disciplinary action noted that a three-judge panel had determined she had committed a 'fraud on the court' and gave her an additional $15,000 sanction. The petition claims that Shogren Smith has failed to pay the $25,000, according to court documents. 'Respondent's misconduct is serious,' the state Supreme Court document said, 'and involved not just lack of competence and failure to communicate with clients, but dishonesty to the courts and disregard for the discipline process.' The court documents said her actions were 'not a brief lapse of judgement' but something that occurred for several years. Shogren Smith is a member of the MN Election Integrity Team, a conservative group that sought to prevent the state from certifying its election results while President Donald Trump and his allies promoted unfounded claims of election fraud. On Dec. 1, 2020, she filed five complaints in Ramsey County District Court, naming as defendants Secretary of State Steve Simon and the Democratic candidates who won their Congressional races. Those legal challenges were filed in the names of 14 separate voters, at least four of whom had no idea they were participating. 'Susan Shogren Smith … perpetrated a fraud against this court and, more importantly, perpetrated a fraud against these plaintiffs,' Ramsey County Chief District Judge Leonardo Castro said at the time the first sanction was imposed. In February of 2021, Republican activist Corinne Braun discovered her name was connected to one of the cases. 'To my horror, I saw that I had sued Steve Simon and Ilhan Omar. It was a surreal moment for me,' she said, likening the discovery to finding her car had been broken into. Braun testified she had received an anonymous email asking to add her name to a list of disgruntled voters. She filled out the form and signed her name and then forwarded the email to about 5,000 people on her mailing list. As Shogren Smith explained in court, what Braun had signed was an affidavit that agreed she 'will be joining with other voters across Minnesota to contest Minnesota election results.' Braun, though, said she didn't understand the implications. Shogren Smith acknowledged she never spoke with the plaintiffs or informed them of the outcome of the case, even when Braun and two other unwitting plaintiffs were ordered to pay $3,873 to the defendants at the conclusion of the case. Shogren Smith said at the time, she believed someone else with the MN Election Integrity Team was having those conversations with plaintiffs. 'I absolutely believed that those conversations were happening with these plaintiffs,' she said. U.S. Customs Border Protection officer charged with possessing child porn Man once convicted in Minnesota of supporting al-Qaida is now charged in Canada for alleged threats Jury finds Milwaukee man guilty of killing and dismembering 19-year-old woman 'We feel relief': Derrick Thompson found guilty in Minneapolis crash that killed five young women Man charged with hate crime in Boulder attack on 'Zionist people' appears in federal court
