Harvey Weinstein Gets Mistrial on 3rd Rape Charge as Jury Foreman Refuses to Return to Deliberations
Harvey Weinstein's third rape charge ended in a mistrial on Thursday after the deadlocked jury deliberations became contentious.
The New York jury found Weinstein guilty on one charge of first-degree sexual assault against a former 'Project Runway' production assistant on Wednesday, but acquitted him on a second charge of sexually assaulting a model in 2006.
However, Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber was 'forced' to declare a mistrial after the jury of seven women and five men could not reach a unanimous verdict on the third lesser charge of third-degree rape. Additionally, the jury foreperson reportedly refused to resume deliberations due to alleged threats from other jury members.
'Sometimes jury deliberations become heated,' Farber told the courtroom. 'I understand this particular deliberation was more heated than some others. That's unfortunate.'
With that said, the judge also said the remaining jury members 'did not describe anything that rose to the level of threats' and that they were ultimately confused why the foreman 'bailed out.'
Jessica Mann, a then-aspiring actress who accused the former media mogul of a 2013 rape, released a statement on Wednesday following the split partial verdict.
'I would never lie about rape or use something so traumatic to hurt someone,' she said. 'Rape can happen in relationships – and in dynamics where power and manipulation control the narrative. Some victims survive by appeasing, and many carry deep empathy, even for their abusers. That's part of the trap.'
'I waived liability because I only ask for accountability,' Mann added. 'Even in my dynamic with Harvey – the lack of a 'seductress' is under-discussed and the evidence that usually follows a person with those intentions. The smear campaign built around me is hollow. The evidence doesn't exist because the propaganda isn't real.'
She further noted that Weinstein 'hides behind PR firms, lawyers, spy agencies contracted to intimidate,' while she can only speak for herself.
'Abusers pre-select their victims – not just for vulnerability, but for how easily the world is ready to discredit them. For how 'believable' their destruction will be,' Mann concluded. 'They pick people society already doubts. People they think no one will miss. Then, when the damage is done, they bury the crime in the wreckage, point to the chaos, and say, See? It's her.'
Meanwhile, Weinstein's spokesperson told TheWrap on Thursday: 'We take the wins where we get them — and the acquittal on the Sokola charge was a major one. A conviction there would have reset the sentencing clock entirely. As it stands, with a conviction only on the Haley count, time served applies and that clock is already running.'
'This trial has raised substantial appellate issues — and Harvey would welcome the opportunity to have those fully reviewed. It is the Court and the prosecution who now have every incentive to avoid seeing this case overturned on appeal,' his team continued. 'That reality creates an opening for a fair and balanced sentencing outcome — one that serves the interests of justice, and gives Harvey a path to come home much sooner than many expected.'
Weinstein remains on the hook for a 16-year sentence in California, where he was convicted in December 2022. That verdict is under an appeal of the same nature that got his 2022 New York conviction thrown out due to improper testimony from women who said they were assaulted, but whose accusations were not formally charged. He has long denied any wrongdoing, admitting that having sex with aspiring actresses amounted to cheating on his wife, not assault.
The post Harvey Weinstein Gets Mistrial on 3rd Rape Charge as Jury Foreman Refuses to Return to Deliberations appeared first on TheWrap.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Coders are saving the Second Amendment: DIY guns and digital resistance
America has always defended itself and its freedoms with a gun in hand. But as technology evolves, code is starting to take its place. A new generation of Second Amendment supporters no longer visits shooting ranges or joins the NRA — instead, it circulates blueprints for 3D-printed weapons. Its members' mission is to protect their homes and their right to bear arms, no matter how the government feels about it. While Americans argue about bans, laws, and protests, an entire ecosystem of do-it-yourself gun culture has grown right under their noses. It's nothing like the old movies, where weapons were built from pipes and nails. Ghost guns — firearms without serial numbers or registration — are often made with parts printed on 3D printers and bought online. U.S. law allows individuals to make firearms for personal use, as long as they don't sell them. According to the ATF, this is legal in many cases. This culture has gone far beyond garages. Blueprints and guides are now spread through Tor, Telegram, and GitHub – anonymously and in ways that are nearly impossible to erase. The first famous design, 'The Liberator,' was posted back in 2013. To this day, anonymous communities keep sharing new versions. These self-styled digital patriots view the right to bear arms as a core freedom. Critics argue they undermine control, because weapons without serial numbers can't be traced. Laws can limit sales, but not ideas. While politicians try to close down stores, millions are downloading code. The Second Amendment has been digitized — it now lives in browsers. When the Supreme Court recently allowed new regulations on so-called 'ghost guns,' as detailed in this ruling, it only proved the paradox: Governments can chase physical parts, but the digital heartbeat of the Second Amendment grows stronger. For every law targeting the sale of hardware, a thousand computer files escape into the wild — untraceable, unstoppable, multiplying in the encrypted corners of the internet, where freedom now lives. Maybe we have reached the point where weapons are no longer just objects. They cannot be eradicated through any amount of banning, seizing, or burning so long as they can be downloaded. Yes, it's scary, but freedom isn't about comfort. It is about risk, discomfort, and chaos — and living with that to keep the right to defend yourself. I don't support putting guns in the hands of criminals. I also don't believe the answer is total control, or that such a thing is even possible. Today, the state is trying to catch up with the internet. But the internet will never stop. As Wired explains, this movement is spreading faster than any law can catch up. And maybe the real question isn't whether to ban weapons — it's how to live in a world where a weapon is now knowledge. This is Prometheus's curse for the digital age: We have stolen the fire of creation, and now we must live with its light, its heat and its burns. The more the government tries to play god by banning and seizing, the deeper into the cave the forge of innovation moves, hammering out new blueprints where Zeus's lightning cannot reach. Maybe this is the new era of the Second Amendment — and its files can't be taken away from Americans. Artem Kolisnichenko writes on crime, immigration, and border policy across the American South and Southwest. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Rules, Again, That Different Standards for Discrimination Plaintiffs Are Unconstitutional
On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a teenage girl and her parents who are attempting to sue the girl's school district for alleged disability discrimination. The decision, which did not rule on the merits of the case, is similar to another recent unanimous ruling finding that courts cannot require different discrimination cases to meet different standards of proof to receive a favorable judgment. The case revolves around a teenage girl with a rare form of epilepsy that severely impacts her physical and cognitive abilities. The girl, identified as "A. J. T." in court documents, has so many seizures each morning that she is unable to attend school before noon. According to her family's suit, the girl received additional evening instruction in her first school district. However, when the family moved to Minnesota, the girl's new school district refused to provide similar accommodations. Instead, she ended up only having a 4.25-hour school day, as opposed to the regular 6.5-hour school day other students received. When the district suggested cutting back her instructional time further, the family sued, claiming that the Minnesota school district's refusal to provide A. J. T. with enough instructional time violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. However, two lower courts ruled against the family. The 8th Circuit ruled that simply failing to provide A. J. T. a reasonable accommodation wasn't enough to prove illegal discrimination. Rather, because the family was suing a school, they would be subject to a higher standard than plaintiffs suing other institutions. The family was told they had to prove that the school's behavior rose to the level of "bad faith" or "gross misjudgment." The Supreme Court disagreed. In the Court's opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that disability discrimination "claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts," adding that "Nothing in the text of Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act suggests that such claims should be subject to a distinct, more demanding analysis." In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reiterated how nonsensical the 8th Circuit's higher standard for educational disability discrimination claims was, noting that some of the most obvious forms of disability discrimination do not involve bad faith or misjudgment against the disabled. "Stairs may prevent a wheelchair-bound person from accessing a public space; the lack of auxiliary aids may prevent a deaf person from accessing medical treatment at a public hospital; and braille-free ballots may preclude a blind person from voting, all without animus on the part of the city planner, the hospital staff, or the ballot designer," she wrote. "The statutes' plain text thus reaches cases involving a failure to accommodate, even where no ill will or animus toward people with disabilities is present." Last week, the Court reached a similar decision, ruling in favor of a straight woman who wanted to sue her employer for sexual orientation–based discrimination but faced a heightened standard of proof because she was a "majority group" plaintiff. In that case, the Court also unanimously ruled that forcing some plaintiffs to clear a higher bar to prove discrimination was unconstitutional and unsupported by federal antidiscrimination law. The post Supreme Court Rules, Again, That Different Standards for Discrimination Plaintiffs Are Unconstitutional appeared first on
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Diddy trial live updates: Federal agent, ex-assistant to testify in Sean Combs's case
Sean Combs's trial, estimated to last eight weeks at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse in New York City, will not be publicly broadcast. During jury selection, prosecutors provided a list of 190 names — including celebrities and public figures — that could surface during testimony. With the trial underway, here are the major players expected at court — including attorneys, potential witnesses and family members.
