Latest news with #NewYorkStateCourtofAppeals
Yahoo
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Harvey Weinstein NYC trial judge calls mistrial in accuser Jessica Mann's rape case
Chaos in the jury room led a judge Thursday to call a mistrial for the one remaining charge against disgraced film mogul Harvey Weinstein, a rape allegation by one-time actress Jessica Mann a day after he was found guilty of sexually assault in his Manhattan retrial. After an eight-week trial in Manhattan Supreme Court, jurors found Weinstein, 73, guilty of criminal sex act against former TV production assistant Miriam Haley, but acquitted him of the same charge against a second accuser, Polish model Kaja Sokola. But the jury couldn't reach a decision on the third accuser, one-time actress Jessica Mann, and the jury foreman refused to rejoin his fellow jurors after reporting Wednesday that he felt threatened by one of them telling him he'd 'see me outside.' The mistrial means prosecutors will have to decide whether to pursue Mann's allegations at a third trial, again subjecting her to days of direct testimony and cross-examination on the witness stand. Mann testified at Weinstein's 2020 trial as well. Deliberations went off the skids when it came to Mann, with the jury foreman asking on three separate occasions to speak to the judge and attorneys away from his fellow jurors. The foreman on Wednesday told Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber that another juror had threatened him, 'You gonna see me outside' during a shouting match, because he wouldn't change his position. That led to calls for a mistrial by Weinstein's lawyer, Arthur Aidala, who said the juror was the victim of a crime and the judge should call 911. Farber released the jury for the day and asked them to return Thursday, but not before asking if they had reached a verdict in any of the charges — and they had, regarding Haley and Sokola. Later, the foreman told Farber that the jury had reached a decision on Haley and Sokola days earlier, on Friday, and their decision was unanimous. When the judge asked him if he'd been coerced, he said 'no,' and responded, 'My own decision.' The foreman said he'd be willing to return to the court building, but didn't commit to rejoining his fellow jurors in the jury room. Mann accused Weinstein of raping her in 2013, but said she maintained a complicated relationship with the film producer for years after. Haley and Sokola said Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on them in separate incidents in 2006. Weinstein was charged with third-degree rape regarding Mann, which is punishable by up to four years in prison. The criminal sex act charge he was convicted up is a far more serious offense, and carries a maximum 25-year sentence. Criminal sex act, which used to be called sodomy, involves forced anal or oral sex. Mann and Haley also took the stand in Weinstein's 2020 trial, which ended in a guilty verdict and a 23-year prison sentence. But last year, the New York State Court of Appeals overturned that conviction, saying the trial judge should have never allowed other women whose allegations were not included in the charges to testify against him and establish a pattern of predatory behavior. Regardless of the trial's outcome, Weinstein wasn't going to go free — he was sentenced to 16 years behind bars after his conviction at a 2022 trial in Los Angeles on separate rape and sexual assault charges.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Harvey Weinstein convicted in Manhattan sexual assault retrial in split verdict
Disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein has been convicted on a sexual assault charge in a split verdict in Manhattan Wednesday, a year after the verdict in his landmark 2020 trial was overturned. Despite tension among jurors, the panel of seven women and five men found Weinstein guilty after five days of deliberation of conducting a criminal sex act regarding former TV production assistant Miriam Haley, but acquitted him on the same charge regarding Polish model and aspiring actress Kaja Sokola. The 73-year-old faces up to 25 years in prison on the charge. Weinstein faced down Haley, Sokola and one-time actress Leslie Mann over the course of the eight-week Manhattan Supreme Court trial. Each took the stand to describe how the 'Pulp Fiction' producer forced himself on them. Mann accused him of raping her in 2013, while Haley and Sokola said Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on them in separate incidents in 2006. The partial verdict Wednesday came after a chaotic day in court, with the jury foreman telling the judge that another juror threatened him, 'I'll meet you outside one day,' and with Weinstein himself admonishing the judge to call a mistrial. The drama in the jury room appears to center on Mann, who testified Weinstein raped her in 2013, but acknowledged she'd maintained a years-long relationship that included consensual sexual encounters. They have not yet reached a verdict on the third-degree rape charge involving Mann. The 6-foot-2 Weinstein, once a towering persona literally and figuratively in Hollywood, sat in a wheelchair throughout the trial. His health has taken a turn for the worse in recent months — he needed emergency heart surgery in September, and he was diagnosed with bone marrow cancer, according to multiple reports in October. Tensions in the jury room boiled into public view several times. On Wednesday, the foreman recounted fighting in the jury room because he wouldn't budge from his position, and described how another another juror told him, 'I'll meet you outside one day.' The film producer's lawyers demanded a mistrial, with Weinstein's lawyer, Arthur Aidala saying, 'There's a crime going on in there, menacing and harassment.' 'This jury is clearly tainted,' Aidala said. 'This is as serious as cancer right now.' Mann and Haley also testified in Weinstein's 2020 trial, which ended in a guilty verdict. But last year, in a bombshell 4-3 decision, the New York State Court of Appeals overturned that conviction, saying the trial judge should have never allowed other women whose allegations were not included in the charges to testify against him and establish a pattern of predatory behavior. Even though the trial testimony was limited to the three women's allegation, Weinstein's long history of serial sex abuse allegations, and the #MeToo movement that went viral after those allegations became public in October 2017, hung over the proceedings. All three women testified about how they received money from a court-ordered victims' settlement fund through the Weinstein Co. bankruptcy, and spoke about how the news accounts of Weinstein's bad deeds spurred them to come forward. The trial judge, Curtis Farber, instructed jurors that they can't use that information to determine Weinstein had a propensity for sexual assault. Weinstein's lawyers also brought up #MeToo, with defense lawyer Arthur Aidala accusing the women of chasing a payday as the movement picked up steam and seeking out attorneys like prominent sexual assault survivor advocate Gloria Allred, who he described as a 'money lawyer.' The disgraced movie mogul's defense team painted the women as liars who manipulated Weinstein to 'cut the line' in the entertainment industry, then cashed in with big civil lawsuit settlements. Assistant D.A. Nicole Blumberg countered in her closing argument, though, that the accusers stayed silent for years, but found the strength to come forward after news accounts revealed Weinstein's long history as a serial sexual abuser in October 2017. Weinstein, who was serving a 23-year sentence before his 2020 conviction was overturned, is also serving a 16-year term after a Los Angeles jury found him guilty of rape and sexual assault in 2022. He has appealed that verdict.
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Harvey Weinstein's lawyers try to poke holes in Miriam Haley's testimony during cross-examination
Harvey Weinstein's defense team on Thursday deployed a pit bull lawyer with a history of defending notorious men to try and poke holes in the testimony of a former 'Project Runway' production assistant who has accused the Hollywood mogul of sexually assaulting her twice. When Miriam Haley took the stand for the third day, defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean, who is known for representing accused sex predators Bill Cosby and R. Kelly, grilled her about the jet-setting lifestyle that gave her access to celebrities like Weinstein. During her questioning, Bonjean got Haley to say that she didn't give reporters a complete picture of her complicated relationship with Weinstein after she first came forward with allegations that the Hollywood heavyweight had performed forcible oral sex on her in June 2006 and then, a month later, raped her. 'I told the part that was relevant,' Haley said when Bonjean asked if she had told the press about friendly email exchanges she had with Weinstein over the years following the alleged 2006 assault. A key detail in Haley's testimony on Wednesday was that she had had her period during the time Weinstein allegedly assaulted her in 2006. During questioning from Bonjean, Haley said that she didn't remember 'exactly' when she got her period in 2006 after the defense attorney showed Haley her calendar, where the former assistant sometimes tracked the start date of her period by writing 'P.' Haley testified that there was no 'P' indicated in the months of January, February and April but there was 'something in March that may be a 'P'.' She said she didn't always remember to add it to her calendar and that she 'skipped' her period some months, adding that she doesn't have a clear memory of her cycle from that year. Bonjean focused on this detail a day after Haley, in graphic detail, told the court Weinstein was not deterred during the first alleged assault when she told him she was having her period. Haley is expected to field more questions from Bonjean about the alleged assaults when court resumes on Friday. Weinstein is on trial again after the New York State Court of Appeals last year overturned his landmark 2020 conviction for sexually abusing young women which defined the #MeToo movement and helped turn the Oscar-winning producer into a pariah. Bonjean was enlisted to be part of Weinstein's defense team partly because she helped get Cosby's conviction for aggravated indecent assault overturned in 2021. But after Friday, Bonjean will no longer be representing Weinstein because she has to appear in a Brooklyn court next week for another case she is defending. Weinstein is charged with one count of engaging in a criminal sex act in connection with Haley's allegations that he forcibly performed oral sex on her in June 2006. He is also charged with one count of third-degree rape for allegedly assaulting actress Jessica Mann in 2013. Both women were part of Weinstein's first trial and Mann is also expected to testify in his retrial. New to the retrial is an additional charge of engaging in a first-degree criminal sexual act for the alleged assault of a Polish former model named Kaja Sokola. Sokola claimed in a lawsuit that she was 16 when Weinstein in 2006 performed oral sex on her without her consent at a Manhattan hotel. She, too, is expected to testify at Weinstein's retrial. Weinstein, 73, has denied assaulting Haley, Mann and Sokola. Prosecutors contend that Weinstein used his Hollywood clout to prey on young women like Haley who were searching for jobs in the TV and film industry — and to silence them after the alleged assaults. Haley, whose testimony at the retrial has largely been a reprise of the testimony she provided in 2020, has already testified that she reached out to Weinstein because she wanted his help finding a job. She has also testified that she did not report the assaults to the police or cut ties to Weinstein immediately after the assaults because she feared what he would do to her professionally. But, under questioning from Bonjean, Haley acknowledged that Weinstein was not the first producer she tapped for job connections. She recounted that she had previously worked for British film and theater producer Michael White, and that, through White, Haley met numerous 'A-listers' like rock stars Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney, as well as actor Jack Nicholson. Weinstein's lead attorney, Arthur Aidala, has insisted from the start of the retrial that his client's sexual encounters with the accusers were 'transactional' and 'consensual.' This article was originally published on
New York Times
12-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump vs. the Law Firms
To the Editor: Re 'An Uncomfortable Lesson From Trump's Tactics,' by Robert S. Smith, a former partner at the Paul, Weiss law firm and a retired judge on the New York State Court of Appeals (Opinion guest essay, April 3): Mr. Smith begins his essay by quoting Bertolt Brecht — 'Unhappy is the land that needs a hero' — but spends most of the remainder of his essay excusing Columbia University and Paul, Weiss for capitulating without a fight. He describes rich universities being pressured and wealthy law firms being extorted, yet does not call for these powerful institutions to defend themselves and us, but suggests that 'the only real answer' is for individual Americans to consider long-term structural reforms. Ultimately, Mr. Smith misses the true peril we face when law firms capitulate to government coercion and fear to defend disfavored clients, or even themselves: We lose access to justice. The legal profession is what gives us access to the courts. Undermine that profession, and you don't need to dismantle the courts directly. You simply make them inaccessible. If Big Law, with its armies of litigators and immense institutional privilege, won't stand up to government overreach and use the structural protections we already have, who will? The tools exist; the failure is in the will to use them. Yes, unhappy is the land that needs heroes. But the land where the strongest among us collapse on cue is not merely unhappy. It is crumbling. Herb Sutter Beavercreek, Ore. To the Editor: Robert S. Smith attempts to make the case that President Trump's attack on his own personal enemies list is enabled by the Democrats who created a too large federal government. If only we had smaller government, he implies, President Trump would not be taking out his vengeance on his enemies. Yet the author seems to have missed the fact that a lot of the federal government is devoted to ensuring that the rule of law applies to the behavior of government officials. President Trump is disregarding all of that and doing whatever he pleases. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Noncitizens cannot vote in New York City's local elections, state high court rules
New Yorkers vote early before November's presidential election. New York state's highest court struck down New York City's statute that would have allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections. () New York state's highest court struck down a New York City statute that would have allowed 800,000 noncitizens to vote in mayoral, city council and school board elections. This month, six of the seven judges on the New York State Court of Appeals upheld an earlier ruling that found the city's statute unconstitutional, siding with the New York Republican State Committee, the Republican National Committee and others. The statute, which passed the City Council in 2021 and would have gone into effect the following year, was never implemented after it was immediately challenged in court. '[I]t is facially clear that only citizens may vote in elections within the State of New York,' wrote Chief Judge Rowan D. Wilson for the majority. Proponents of allowing legal permanent residents and those in the United States on work authorization to vote solely in local elections argue that it helps integrate immigrants into American society, allowing them to vote on issues dear to them, such as their children's education or taxes. Taking that away is a 'grave injustice,' said Murad Awawdeh, president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition, one of the groups that appealed a lower court's ruling. 'New York City needs more democracy, not less,' Awawdeh said in a statement. 'Expanding voting rights strengthens our communities, and improves our school, housing, and public services.' New York City was one of about 20 cities and towns in California, Maryland and Vermont — along with the District of Columbia — that allow noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Those laws make it clear that the vote would only be extended for local elections, noting that only U.S. citizens may vote in statewide and federal elections. In November, 60% of voters in Santa Ana, California, rejected a ballot measure that would have allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections. Last month, a Vermont Superior Court judge dismissed a conservative group's lawsuit challenging Burlington's statute allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections, including those for school board. As Stateline has reported, very few noncitizens have actually participated in these local elections, many either afraid that voting would alert federal immigration officials or unaware that the statutes even existed. Those challenging the New York City statute argued that not only did the statute language violate the state constitution, but that it also would dilute the voice of the city's 5 million registered voters. The issue of noncitizens participating in American elections has become a focus of Republican efforts to add more restrictions to the voting process. The GOP-led Congress has made enacting the proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act a major priority. The legislation, known as the SAVE Act, would require voters to show a birth certificate, passport or some proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. But passing the SAVE Act could disenfranchise U.S. citizens, some voting rights advocates say. Critics of the measure point out that more than 21 million American citizens lack access to such documents. They also note that women who have changed their names after marriage are also at risk of being disenfranchised. Finally, they point out that it is already illegal under federal law for noncitizens to vote. Stateline reporter Matt Vasilogambros can be reached at mvasilogambros@
