How ‘12 Angry Men’ caused Harvey Weinstein mistrial


Juror misconduct and intense disagreements during deliberations led to a mistrial in Harvey Weinstein's case, raising concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the process.
AI Summary available — skim the key points instantly. Show AI Generated Summary
Show AI Generated Summary

For Weinstein, a fallen Hollywood titan, the drama could have challenged any of the hundreds of films he produced before he was toppled by the MeToo scandal.

Addressing the foreman’s concerns, Arthur Aidala, acting for Weinstein, claimed he had never heard of a case where a “grown man who was in good physical shape” was “so intimidated” that he point-blank refused to go back to the jury room, calling it evidence of “gross juror misconduct”.

The first signs that something was amiss came on Friday, when one of the 12 asked to be removed from the case, aggrieved that a fellow juror was being treated in an “unfair and unjust” way by others.

“Playground stuff” was happening, with a member of the jury being shunned and spoken about behind their back, he said.

Judge Farber, rejecting the defence’s request for a mistrial, said: “This is nothing other than normal tensions during heated deliberations.” Noting the juror who made the request was the youngest of the group, he suggested his age “makes him uncomfortable with conflict”.

‘Jurors attacking each other’

When proceedings resumed on Monday, the foreman raised concerns that his peers were aggressively pushing others to change their mind, and straying beyond the specifics of Weinstein’s charges.

“I feel like they are attacking, talking together, fighting together. I don’t like it,” he said, according to a transcript of his conversation with Judge Faber and legal teams.

From there the tensions steadily ramped up, with the disgraced producer addressing the court on Wednesday after a fourth complaint from a juror, pleading: “This is not right for me… this is my life that’s on the line.”

The same day, Judge Farber told the court there had been “some fighting in the jury room” and that at least one juror told another: “I’ll meet you outside one day.”

“It’s 12 people who don’t know each other and are randomly thrown together, and there are so many variables,” Sabrina Shroff, a veteran New York defence lawyer, told The Telegraph.

“Race is a variable, sexuality is a variable, class is a variable. So you don’t really know which one of these things is at play when they’re deliberating.”

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