Former film Mogul Harvey Weinstein was convicted of one of the best charges in a sex crime retrial on Wednesday, but another person and the ju umpire still failed to reach the verdict on the third charge.
The split verdict was a measure of his proof against his accusers and prosecutors, but against Weinstein after the landmark case was thrown into Limbo.
Weinstein’s first belief five years ago appeared to solidify the downfall of one of Hollywood’s most powerful men at a moment of crucial importance to the #MeToo movement.
However, the conviction was overturned last year, and the case was sent back for retrial in the same Manhattan court.
This time, a majority of female ju-search convicted the former studio boss in 2006 for forcing Miriam Haley to oral sex into a criminal act.
However, the ju judge acquitted Weinstein in the same year on another criminal law charge against Kaja Sokola.
The ju apprentice continued to deliberate on accusations of raping another woman in 2013.
Under New York state law, third-degree rape fees pose a lower penalty than a crime of first-degree criminal activity.
Weinstein, 73, denied sexually assaulting or raping anyone.
Ju-degreements wobbled Wednesday as Forisson demanded that the judge tell the judge about the “situation” he once again found troublesome.
On Monday, the man complained that other ju-searchers were urging people to change their minds and talk about information beyond the charges, was being questioned personally at his request.
The ju judge was in court to hear the answer to his previous request to rehear the rape law text, but the foreperson signaled Judge Curtis Farber what he wanted to talk about.
“He said the words about the effect of ‘You can’t get back there with other ju umpires,” Farber explained later. The foreperson was sent to wait in another room, where he wrote a note saying, “I need to tell you about the situation.”
When he was taken to court for a moment, the foreperson said he wanted to talk to him privately. He, the judge, the prosecutor and Weinstein’s lawyers then went behind the closed door.
While the debate was closed to the press and the public, Farber later said that the foreperson didn’t want to change his position and was being bullied.
“He had shown that at least one other ju umpire commented on the effect of ‘I’ll see you outside someday’.
Weinstein’s lawyer Arthur Adara said he more severely characterized Forisson’s concerns and after fellow panelists spoke about meeting him, he said he was worried about his safety.
“I don’t think the court is protecting this ju apprentice for a period,” Adara said.
However, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said the previous artisan seemed not to be afraid or worried about being just “stubborn.”
“He said he made up his mind and didn’t want to change it and people were putting pressure on him to change it. That’s what’s involved in the ju judge’s deliberation,” the prosecutor said.
Tensions among ju-referees
This episode was the latest indication of tension among the ju umpire. On Friday, one of them asked to make excuses as they felt another member of the group was being treated unfairly.
Weinstein’s lawyers called for a false hearing after Forisson raised his concern Monday, then and again. The ry umpire continued deliberation and passed on Tuesday without sending any further messages about interpersonal tensions.
Seven women and five male ju apprentices began their fifth day of deliberation on Wednesday by rehearing the testimony of accused Jessica Mann of raping her in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013.
The group concluded Tuesday’s deliberations by asking them to revisit their testimony.
Some appeared to be taking new notes on Wednesday, while other ju umpires sat cautiously as court stenographers read the requested portion of Mann’s days of testimony aloud. The ry umpire had already rehearsed several sections last week.
Weinstein pleaded not guilty to raping Mann and forcing two other women, Mimi Haley and Kaja Sokora to oral sex.
The Oscar-winning producer and former Hollywood powerbroker claimed that he had never sexually assaulted or raped anyone, and his lawyer portrayed his accuser as an opportunist who embraced his progress because he wanted to lift his foot in the entertainment world.
