Harvey Weinstein Retrial: Judge Declares Mistrial on Final Sex Crime Charge - The New York Times


AI Summary Hide AI Generated Summary

Harvey Weinstein Retrial Ends in Mistrial

The retrial of Harvey Weinstein concluded with a mistrial on the final sex crime charge. The jury foreman's unwillingness to continue deliberations led to the judge's decision. This followed a contentious day in court where the jury convicted Weinstein on one felony sex crime but acquitted him on another, while deadlocking on a third-degree rape charge.

Juror Disagreement

The foreman reported that the deliberations were marked by yelling and that he felt threatened by other jurors. However, other jurors reported less contentious interactions, and the judge did not find evidence of threats.

Judge's Decision

The judge declared a mistrial, acknowledging the heated nature of the deliberations, expressing his understanding of the difficult situation and thanking the jurors for their service.

Sign in to unlock more AI features Sign in with Google

The judge overseeing the sex-crimes trial of Harvey Weinstein on Thursday declared a mistrial on a final charge against him, after the jury foreman said he was unwilling to return to deliberations.

The ruling followed a wild day in court on Wednesday, in which jurors in Manhattan convicted Mr. Weinstein of a felony sex crime but were then sent home to cool off. The jury foreman had complained to the judge that deliberations had devolved into yelling and that he felt threatened by the other jurors.

On Wednesday, the panel of seven women and five men announced a partial verdict, convicting Mr. Weinstein on a single count of criminal sexual act and acquitting him of another count of the same charge. They were unable to reach a consensus on a charge of third-degree rape.

On Thursday morning, after the foreman said he was unwilling to continue, the judge thanked the jurors for their service and told them he was obligated to declare a mistrial on the remaining count.

“Sometimes jury deliberations become heated,” Justice Curtis Farber said. “I understand this particular deliberation was more heated than some others. That’s unfortunate.”

After releasing them, Justice Farber said he had spoken to the others on the jury, describing them as “extremely disappointed.” They did not, he said, describe the deliberations as contentious as the foreman had. “They did not describe anything that rose to the level of threats,” he said.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

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.

Was this article displayed correctly? Not happy with what you see?

Tabs Reminder: Tabs piling up in your browser? Set a reminder for them, close them and get notified at the right time.

Try our Chrome extension today!


Share this article with your
friends and colleagues.
Earn points from views and
referrals who sign up.
Learn more

Facebook

Save articles to reading lists
and access them on any device


Share this article with your
friends and colleagues.
Earn points from views and
referrals who sign up.
Learn more

Facebook

Save articles to reading lists
and access them on any device