Harvey Weinstein Defense Rests In NYC Rape Retrial; Closing Arguments Now, Then Case Goes To Jury
Harvey Weinstein is one crucial step closer to learning what his fate will be at the hands of the jury in his New York rape retrial.
After a morning session in front of Judge Curtis Farber haggling over material that may or may not go to the jury (it won't), Weinstein's Arthur Aidala-led defense rested its case – without calling its client to testify for himself. Moving deftly, the proceedings are now in closing arguments, with Aidala pleading Weinstein's merits before the jurors.
More from Deadline
Harvey Weinstein Won't Testify In His Own Defense In NYC Sex Crimes Retrial; Jury Deliberations May Start Tuesday
Patricia Clarkson Recalls Harvey Weinstein Telling Her She'd "Never Work Again"
Harvey Weinstein's Move For Mistrial Fails On Second Day Of Rape Retrial - Update
Closing arguments from the defense and the Manhattan District Attorney's office are expect to go on for a few hours, but the plan is the jury will have the case by the end of the day. At that point, the seven-woman, five-man panel will go behind closed doors to come to their verdict.
The 73-year-old once powerful producer will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars if the jury hearing his retrial in New York convicts him on any of the three charges against him.
Back in 2020, in Weinstein's now dismissed first Empire State rape case, the jury then took about five days to come to a verdict of guilty on two of five counts: third-degree rape and a first-degree criminal sexual act. In March of that year, an openly shocked Weinstein was sentenced to 23-years in state prison by now pink slipped New York Supreme Court Judge James Burke.
In this retrial, while the single count of third degree rape that Weinstein is facing carries a maximum sentence of four years, each count of first-degree criminal sexual act carries a maximum sentence of 25 years. As well as the numerous cases of assaulting well-known actresses and models over the decades, prosecutors in the most benign way say Weinstein used his power and influence as an Oscar-winning producer and mini-studio boss to lure young women into his orbit. Offering what were almost always false promises of work and careers in film and television, Weinstein then often violently raped them or forced them into other unwanted sexual encounters.
Fronted by the flamboyant Aidala, Weinstein's defense has sought to prove that the relationships between Weinstein and his accusers were long-running, consensual and mutually exploitive –-a 'friends with benefits' arrangement, as Aidala said in opening arguments, where sex was traded for access to Weinstein's professional network.
Jurors in the rape and sexual assault retrial heard from two accusers, Jessica Mann and Miriam Haley, who also testified in graphic detail against Weinstein five years ago in his first criminal trial in New York. A third accuser testifying in the retrial, Kaja Sokola, was not part of the 2020 case: Sokola's accusation, that Weinstein assaulted her in a Manhattan hotel room in 2006, was the basis of a new charge — first-degree criminal sexual act — added to a revised grand jury indictment of the Pulp Fiction producer.
Prosecutors secured the indictment last September, after Weinstein's 2020 conviction and 23-year prison sentence were overturned in April of 2024. A New York Court of Appeals ruled that the judge overseeing Weinstein's first trial, James Burke, had deprived the defendant of a fair trial by allowing uncharged testimony from other women who told jurors that Weinstein had sexually abused them.
'The court compounded that error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light,' according to the 4-3 ruling.
Weinstein did not testify at his first trial. The potential hazards of a wide-ranging cross examination were apparently a factor in his decision over the weekend to also not take the stand at the retrial. 'He wanted to testify, and we respect that instinct,' Weinstein's longtime spokesperson Juda Engelmayer told Deadline on Monday. 'At this stage, doing so would subject him to scrutiny far beyond the scope of the current charges — raising issues that could unfairly damage his credibility. Our position is one of caution, not evasion.'
Weinstein remains in custody in New York because of his 2022 criminal conviction in Los Angeles. He s appealing that conviction and 16-year prison sentence for raping and assaulting a woman, identified only as Jane Doe, in 2013.
Weinstein has denied ever committing rape or coercing anyone sexually. In a jailhouse interview last month with right-wing commentator Candace Owens, he said, 'I swear that before God and the people watching now and on my family. I'm wrongfully accused. But justice has to know the difference between what is immoral and what is illegal.'
Since this retrial started in late April, the ailing Weinstein has shuttled between a downtown Manhattan courthouse and the jail wing of a nearby hospital, Bellevue. Citing his various ailments, as he has in previous trials at pivotal points, the once acclaimed producer has lobbied hard to stay out of New York's infamous Rikers Island jail, telling Judge Farber the conditions there are life-threatening. Farber decided in the first week of the retrial to allow Weinstein to stay at the historic hospital during the proceedings.
On the subject of his medical needs ,Weinstein underwent emergency heart surgery in September and was diagnosed with cancer in October.
Best of Deadline
Everything We Know About 'Nobody Wants This' Season 2 So Far
List Of Hollywood & Media Layoffs From Paramount To Warner Bros Discovery To CNN & More
Everything We Know About 'Happy Gilmore 2' So Far
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Justice David Souter and state constitutional law
Among scholars who study state courts and state constitutions, Justice David Souter was notable for the experience at the state level that he brought with him to the Supreme Court. (Photo by) Following retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter's passing last month, commentators memorialized the justice with appreciations of his analytical acumen and commitment to the role of neutral arbiter. Steven Vladeck, for instance, praised Souter for 'just how seriously he took his job as a justice — and a judge.' At the same time, however, as longtime Supreme Court observer Linda Greenhouse noted in The New York Times, Souter's 'name was on so few significant opinions and his profile at the court was so low that after his first few years, legal academia essentially stopped paying attention to him.' Not all of legal academia. Among scholars who study state courts and state constitutions, Souter was notable for the experience at the state level that he brought with him to the Supreme Court. During his tenure as a member of New Hampshire's highest court, that court contributed to the development of state constitutional law in significant ways. The Granite State stood at the forefront of the jurisprudential phenomenon known as the 'new judicial federalism' — the practice of state courts interpreting the individual rights provisions of their own constitutions independently of the Supreme Court's rulings on the parallel protections contained in the federal Bill of Rights. The new judicial federalism was inspired, in large part, by an essay published in the Harvard Law Review in 1977. Alarmed by the extent to which the Supreme Court was retreating from the robust protection of individual rights under the federal constitution, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan reminded readers that 'State constitutions, too, are a font of individual liberties, their protections often extending beyond those required by the Supreme Court's interpretation of federal law.' In other words, individuals and advocates should consider, in appropriate cases, the depth and reach of state constitutional individual rights provisions. The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard Brennan's call. In its 1983 decision in State v. Ball, the high court held that, when state constitutional issues are properly raised, the state courts have 'a responsibility to make an independent determination of the protections afforded in the New Hampshire Constitution.' To ignore this obligation, the court continued, would be to fail in the duty to defend the state constitution, which in turn would undermine 'the federalism that must be so carefully safeguarded by our people.' A commitment to the independent interpretation of the state constitution necessarily entails the development of approaches and modes of analysis suited to that particular constitutional context, which Justice Souter recognized in a 1986 case, State v. Bradberry. Souter had been appointed to the high court when the court issued its opinion in Ball, but he did not participate in the decision. Bradberry thus presented an opportunity for him to explain the stakes for state constitutional law in individual rights cases: 'If we place too much reliance on federal precedent,' he wrote, 'we will render the State rules a mere row of shadows; if we place too little, we will render State practice incoherent. If we are going to steer between these extremes, we will have to insist on developed advocacy from those who bring the cases before us.' Justice Souter's plea for support from the bar in state constitutional cases continues to resonate. In our treatise on state constitutional law, 'The Law of American State Constitutions,' my co-author Bob Williams and I referred to Souter's opinion in Bradberry as a definitive statement on the matter. In the book, we echoed the perspective articulated in his opinion: State courts that rely wholly on federal law in interpreting their state constitutional rights protections risk diminishing those protections, while too little respect for federal precedent risks isolating a state's law from the larger, national discourse about the meaning of common individual rights provisions. His experience with state constitutional law and the new judicial federalism distinguished Justice Souter's career from that of most of his fellow U.S. Supreme Court justices, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court's commitment to fostering independent state constitutional interpretation in State v. Ball has distinguished it from other state courts. In Bradberry, Justice Souter maintained that the commitment represents but an initial step toward reckoning with state constitutional text. In ascertaining the meaning of the state's charter, Souter advised, the state's courts should expect to rely on counsel representing each side of a case to illuminate the text. Such advocacy allows judges to consider the full range of interpretive possibilities that may lie in particular provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution — and creates an alternative to relying exclusively on the views of nine judges in Washington, D.C., who are tasked with construing a similar but fundamentally different constitution
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is it time to talk impeachment? Given Trump's actions, it may be overdue.
In the few months since Donald Trump returned to the presidency, he has issued so many executive orders and pronouncements on domestic and foreign policy that he may have overwhelmed our intellectual and emotional energy to fully appreciate their impact. Whether or not you approve of the direction he wants to take the country, he took office after being duly elected. Many of his initiatives are within his authority. Generally speaking, Trump has the right to indulge his ideological obsessions and advance policies that benefit the economic class that 'brung him to the dance.' But, what of those executive orders that exceed the limited authority proscribed for the presidency — powers meant to be shared with other branches of government, or those that defy Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution? Say goodbye to democracy — and our freedoms — if we ignore James Madison's warning in the Federalist Papers No. 47 that "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump took the Presidential Oath of Office to 'faithfully execute the Office of President' and 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Yet just three months later, when asked if he agreed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that every person in the United States is entitled to due process, Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker that he's not so sure. 'I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.' The Constitution states that 'no person' shall be 'deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' It says 'person,' not 'citizen.' Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has held that everyone in this country have certain basic rights. When Welker reminded the president of this constitutionally guaranteed right, Trump complained that this only slows him down: 'I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it.' This helps explain why democracy requires an independent judiciary — to check the actions of the executive (from local police to presidents) to ensure that government allegations of wrongdoing are accurate and mistakes are not made. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the recent high-profile example, is Salvadoran, married to an American citizen with three American-born children who has lived in U.S. since 2011. He was granted protected status by an immigration judge in 2019. Nevertheless he was detained by ICE in March and deported to El Salvador without a hearing. The Trump administration originally acknowledged that he was mistakenly deported, and a federal judge ordered that he be returned to the U.S. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld this directive. As of this writing the Trump administration has done nothing to facilitate his return. The President even quipped that he could do so, but he will not. The government now asserts that Abrego Garcia's deportation wasn't a mistake, claiming he is a member of the Salvadoran gang MS-13, but declines to provide evidence supporting the claim. As if to emphasize contempt for constitutional rights, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller recently said that the Trump administration was considering suspending Habeas Corpus to block an immigrant's right to challenge their detention before being deported. There are other examples of presidential defiance of the law, such as the illegal impoundment of congressionally authorized appropriations and constitutional freedoms. So, it is time to insert the 'I' word (impeachment) into civic conversations. I am not naïve: impeachment is neither imminent nor likely — for now. The disgrace of this period, as future historians will note, is that whether the President has intimidated Congress into silence or they applaud his overly expansive use of power, the legislative branch has abandoned its oversight responsibility. For now, Congress is content to look the other way. Nevertheless, we must begin to insert 'impeachable offenses' into civic conversations. If we don't, we will be complicit in accepting that the aberrant behavior of this President is the new normal for the evaluation of future presidents. Howard L. Simon served as executive director of the ACLU of Florida from 1997-2018. He resides in Gainesville and is president of Clean Okeechobee Waters Foundation, Inc. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Talk of impeachment hasn't come up. How long can that last? | Opinion
Hypebeast
39 minutes ago
- Hypebeast
Cillian Murphy Confirmed to Return in '28 Years Later' Trilogy
Summary Great news for fans of the iconic28 Days Laterzombie franchise. DirectorDanny Boylehas officially confirmed thatCillian Murphywill reprise his role as Jim in the ongoing28 Days Lateruniverse. This confirmation comes amidst intense speculation and a clever rollout strategy for the new trilogy. Murphy, who famously starred in the original 2002 film, will make his return in28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, the second film in the new trilogy. While his appearance inThe Bone Templeis expected to be a brief, yet significant, 'handover section' or 'epilogue' teasing his larger role, fans are eagerly anticipating his return. Boyle revealed this information recently toIGNnoting, 'He is in the second one. I shouldn't give away too much… I'll get killed.' He also hinted that Murphy's involvement, especially after his recent Oscar win, could be crucial in securing the budget for the third film in the series. The new28 Years Latertrilogy, crafted by Boyle and original writer Alex Garland, has already seen its first two installments shot back-to-back for logistical and storytelling reasons. The first film,28 Years Later, is set to hit theaters on June 20, 2025. '28 Years Later: The Bone Temple,' featuring Murphy's return, will follow shortly after, with a release date of January 16, 2026. The trilogy's new protagonist is an 11-year-old character named Spike, played by Alfie Williams, who will 'run right way through the films.' Other new cast members in28 Years Laterinclude Jodie Comer, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and Ralph Fiennes. Cillian Murphy is also serving as an executive producer on the new films, indicating his deeper involvement in the franchise's revival.
