I was juror 11 on the People of the State of New York v. Harvey Weinstein. Today’s heartbreaking reversal of our verdict by an appeals court does not change in my mind that Weinstein is guilty of rape. What it does is underscore that if you are wealthy, you can afford the cleverest and most relentless lawyers to effectively exploit legal technicalities. The decision is a punch in the gut to Weinstein’s victims – and to all rape victims, where so often the only evidence is a woman’s word.
New York state’s highest court ruled 4-3 today that the disgraced Hollywood producer didn’t get a fair trial, because the jury should not have heard testimony from witnesses to alleged “prior bad acts” by Weinstein for which he was not charged. Prosecutors presumably put these witnesses on the stand because they worried the testimony of the three main accusers, some of whom also had consensual encounters with Weinstein, might not convince us of his guilt. They were mistaken.
Related:
All 12 jurors took the job extremely seriously. We firmly believed that Weinstein, like any other American, had a right to a fair trial. We all had to be willing to find him not guilty and face the world head on if we set him free. Looking at Weinstein slumped over the table in the courtroom, I asked myself: If he were my brother or my father, how would I want him to be treated?
I reminded myself of this guiding question throughout the six weeks of brutal testimony by the women Weinstein had cajoled, bullied and ultimately forced into sex. As jurors, we understood that any verdict had to be based on testimony by the accusing witnesses and no one else. We had to believe the accusing witnesses beyond a reasonable doubt, and we had to do so unanimously.
As we deliberated over five intensely difficult days, we tried to keep our process systematic and organized, despite the strong emotions that were an inevitable part of a rape trial. One juror was appointed by all to lead the discussions. We divided our conversation into three parts corresponding to each of the three accusing witnesses. We went through each of the relevant counts in order. When we could not agree, we took a break and discussed another accusing witness’s testimony.
On two occasions, we asked to hear parts of their testimony a second time. The “prior bad acts” witnesses rarely came up in our deliberations, as they were not part of the accusations.
Related:
Former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., who oversaw Weinstein’s prosecution, said today that the “prior bad acts” testimony demonstrating Weinstein’s pattern of predatory behavior “was fair and necessary to explain to the jury how and why these women were repeatedly victimized.” It’s my opinion that we would have seen the pattern of assault in the accusing witnesses alone, and did not need additional witnesses to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Weinstein was guilty. It’s profoundly disappointing that our verdict was overturned over additional testimony that had so little influence on our deliberations.
Weinstein was not on trial for those “prior bad acts” – for allegedly shoving his hand up one woman’s skirt or for masturbating in front of two others. He was accused of criminal sexual acts against Annabella Sciorra, Jessica Mann and Miriam Haley. We convicted him for acts against two of the three. Based on what happened in that jury room, it’s simply incorrect that Weinstein did not receive a fair trial. We didn’t deliberate for five days to wrongfully send a fellow human being to jail.
What message is the divided court sending in overturning Weinstein’s conviction? That if you are rich, you can pay to appeal over and over until you get your way? And if you are a victim of a person like Weinstein, don’t bother filing charges because money is the only real power in America?
Harvey Weinstein ruined the lives of many women. Sciorra, Mann, Haley – and hundreds of others who could not or would not testify – all continue to suffer. In acts of brutality that probably only lasted a few minutes each, Weinstein damaged their lives irreparably.
Related:
In a sharp dissent, New York Appeals Court Judge Anthony Cannataro wrote that the decision of four of his fellow justices to overturn the conviction “represents an unfortunate step backwards from recent advances in our understanding of how sex crimes are perpetrated and why victims sometimes respond in seemingly counterintuitive ways.” Today’s reversal reopens the victims’ wounds, and insults the jury who worked so hard on this case.
Our justice system failed us today. For now, Weinstein remains in prison and is also serving a 16-year sentence on a separate rape case in California. But his lawyer Jennifer Bonjean said today that today’s decision will bolster his appeal in Los Angeles.
It’s not hard to imagine a day when Weinstein might be back at his favorite restaurant, Cipriani, making a mockery of our justice system by celebrating his freedom.
Amanda Brainerd is a novelist and real estate broker in New York City.
Opinion: We Gave Weinstein a Fair Trial
42
5
02.05.2024
I was juror 11 on the People of the State of New York v. Harvey Weinstein. Today’s heartbreaking reversal of our verdict by an appeals court does not change in my mind that Weinstein is guilty of rape. What it does is underscore that if you are wealthy, you can afford the cleverest and most relentless lawyers to effectively exploit legal technicalities. The decision is a punch in the gut to Weinstein’s victims – and to all rape victims, where so often the only evidence is a woman’s word.
New York state’s highest court ruled 4-3 today that the disgraced Hollywood producer didn’t get a fair trial, because the jury should not have heard testimony from witnesses to alleged “prior bad acts” by Weinstein for which he was not charged. Prosecutors presumably put these witnesses on the stand because they worried the testimony of the three main accusers, some of whom also had consensual encounters with Weinstein, might not convince us of his guilt. They were mistaken.
Related:
All 12 jurors took the job extremely seriously. We firmly believed that Weinstein, like any other American, had a right to a fair trial. We all had to be willing to find him not guilty and face the world head on if we set him free. Looking at Weinstein slumped over the table........
© U.S.News
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Mohamad Elmasry
Maoz Inon
Belen Fernandez
Brahma Chellaney
Tarik Cyril Amar
Petra Lesjak Tušek
Gideon Levy
Rachel Marsden
