A judge in Manhattan declared a mistrial on Friday after the jury in Harvey Weinstein’s rape trial was unable to reach a verdict.
The jurors, four women and eight men, spent more than two days deliberating if the Hollywood producer raped an aspiring actress in a hotel room in 2013. It’s the second time a jury has not been able to reach a verdict on the charge.
In 2020, Mr. Weinstein first went on trial and was convicted of raping the aspiring actress, Jessica Mann. But the verdict was overturned, and in a second trial last year, he was convicted on a single count of criminal sexual act against another accuser, while the jury deadlocked on the rape count involving Ms. Mann. The judge overseeing the case, Justice Curtis Farber of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, ordered a new trial.
The jury’s deadlock on Friday means that Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, will now have to decide whether his office will try Mr. Weinstein for a fourth time. The case was first tried under his predecessor.
In a statement, Mr. Bragg said that while his office was disappointed by Friday’s outcome, it has deep respect for “the jury system and sincerely thank all of the jurors for their time and dedication.”
“We will consider our next steps in consultation with Ms. Mann, and in consideration of Harvey Weinstein’s pending sentencing following last year’s trial conviction for forcibly sexually assaulting Miriam Haley,” he said.
Ms. Mann released her own statement saying that the “mistrial doesn’t in any way detract from the truth I told and the violent crimes Harvey Weinstein committed upon me and so many others.”
She added, “I submitted myself to the highest standards, transparency and accountability in coming forward through the justice system — choosing integrity even when the process flayed me open.”
In a news conference, a lawyer for Mr. Weinstein, Marc Agnifilo, said that the defense’s chances in a retrial are “outstanding.”
“I was told that the jury was 9-3 to acquit Harvey Weinstein,” he told reporters. “I’m very grateful for a jury of New Yorkers for listening to the evidence so closely.”
The accusations against Mr. Weinstein nearly a decade ago had catalyzed activism across the globe. Once an influential Hollywood producer, he was seen as emblematic of the scores of powerful men who lost their jobs after public allegations of misconduct.
When Mr. Weinstein was initially convicted in 2020, the jury’s finding was greeted as the culmination of the #MeToo movement, a hard-fought legal victory for the disgraced producer’s many accusers. But much has changed in the years since, even as Mr. Weinstein has been tried three additional times in two different states and convictions, reversals and dead-ends have piled up.
In his most recent trials, his legal teams have bet that the effects of the #MeToo movement on the nation’s culture and politics, from Hollywood to the White House, have faded.
Shortly before this trial, Mr. Weinstein hired a new team of lawyers: Jacob Kaplan, Mr. Agnifilo and Teny Geragos. Their firm has defended other high-profile people, including Sean Combs, the fallen hip-hop mogul.
This was the first of Mr. Weinstein’s three Manhattan trials in which prosecutors presented only one accusers story and, providing no physical evidence, asked the jury to believe it.
Over five days of testimony, Ms. Mann told her account for the third time.
In 2013, Ms. Mann said, she was visiting New York and had planned a morning meal with friends and Mr. Weinstein, but he had arrived early and got a hotel room over her objections. After she accompanied him to the room, she testified, he injected his penis with medication that produced an erection and then raped her.
Two days later, she wrote a note on her phone labeled “Thoughts; Violation of emotions,” which had not been presented at either of the previous trials. In the note, she said that she “let myself become emotionally attached to someone” and “the actions vs. how I feel towards this one person has conflict in my life.” Ms. Mann did not mention rape or name Mr. Weinstein in the note, but she did not dispute during cross-examination that it had been written about him.
The encounter in the hotel was the beginning of what Ms. Mann has described as a complex relationship that spanned about four years. As time passed, and she struggled in her acting career, Ms. Mann said her interactions with the producer included friendly email exchanges, phone calls and several consensual sexual encounters.
As Ms. Mann testified, she took breaks and at times cried on the stand. After being confronted with the note from 2013, Ms. Mann said she was feeling unwell.
“I feel like I’m getting really spacey right now, and I’m trying to be really present,” Ms. Mann said.
Outside of the courthouse in Lower Manhattan on Friday, one juror, Rick Treese, said the deliberations had been difficult. It felt like the panel had failed in not delivering a verdict, Mr. Treese said, and, while deliberating, the group had repeatedly said “it would be best if we all came to a conclusion.”
“We really spent a lot of time making sure that everybody had their viewpoint expressed,” Mr. Treese said. “It was just an emotional thing.”
Another juror, Josh Hadar, said that he had voted for not guilty, a decision he said he didn’t “come at that easily at all.” Mr. Hadar confirmed that the split had been 9-3, in favor of acquitting Mr. Weinstein. The consensus had been that Ms. Mann had “a lot of contradictions in her statements,” he said.
“When it came time for the prosecution, a lot of people felt that she had incredible memory,” Mr. Hadar said. “When it came time to the defense a lot of people felt that she forgot a lot of things.”
The mistrial unfolded over two notes and several hours on Friday morning.
And at 11:20 a.m. on Friday, the jurors sent a note to Justice Farber, saying they could not reach a verdict.
“We the jury request to let the judge know that the members of the jury have concluded that we cannot reach a unanimous decision,” they wrote.
The judge read them a so-called Allen charge, official instructions for the jurors to continue their deliberations, with the goal of reaching an agreement through the reconsideration of differing opinions. One juror shook his head when the judge told them that if they can’t reach a decision, a new trial will be scheduled before a new jury.
Several jurors looked frustrated as they walked out of the courtroom to continue their discussions.
They sent another note at 12:50 p.m, saying they remained deadlocked and “we feel that no one is going to change where they stand.”
At around 1:15 p.m., Justice Farber dismissed the jurors, telling them that he didn’t “see any reason to go further in deliberations. It’s not meant to be a coercive process.”
Hurubie Meko is a Times reporter covering criminal justice in New York, with a focus on the Manhattan district attorney’s office and state courts.
The post Judge Declares Mistrial in Weinstein Rape Trial appeared first on New York Times.
