Why was the Harvey Weinstein jury hopelessly deadlocked in his third NYC sex crimes trial?
This is why. The accusation was that he had raped actress Jessica Mann in 2013. However:
Mann, now 40, broke down several times during her painful testimony as she faced off against her abuser for the third time after a jury at last year’s retrial could not convict the ex-powerhouse producer of rape.
“I said, ‘No’ over and over and I tried to leave,” Mann said through sobs, shortly before she demonstrated to jurors how Weinstein allegedly pinned both of her wrists above her head during the sex attack.
Mann had testified that she did have a consensual relationship at one point because she felt it could lead to a “loving relationship” — while also acknowledging she knew about Weinstein’s power in Tinseltown and how it affected her decision to get involved with him.
At what point did that consensual relationship end, how clearly was that communicated to Weinstein, and why were they alone together at the time of the alleged rape? Did the jury factor into their deliberations the fact that Mann is an actress and that her tears could be performative?
Most important of all, probably, was this piece of evidence [my emphasis]:
Weinstein’s attorney Teny Geragos held Mann on the ropes during a brutal, multi-day cross-examination when she was pressed repeatedly about her relationship with Weinstein and a so-called love note — written by Mann just two days after the alleged New York City attack — which was introduced for the first time at any trial.
“Do I love him or the idea of him? With him — easy. The idea of expanding that — fulfilling,” Mann mused — two days after she said she was sexually assaulted by Weinstein in a room at the DoubleTree hotel in Manhattan.
Based on that note, I think he should have been acquitted – not because he didn’t rape her (that is unknown and at this point unknowable), but because the note introduces very strong reasonable doubt that he did.
Sexual relationships are often fraught with miscommunication and/or misperception, plus failures of memory and ex post facto revisions of memory. The year 2013 is also a long long time ago.
Gotta love them jornolists: “a jury at last year’s retrial could not convict the ex-powerhouse producer of rape.”It can be read that Weinstein IS the “powerhouse producer of rape” !
Plus, it is bizarre to retry, for the third time, a person 13 years after the alleged event.
Ladies, if you have the misfortune of getting raped, go to the police immediately, not a decade later. OK?
You are ruining it for the girls who aren’t trying to play things to advance their careers.
(Did that prosecutor know about that note from two days later? If so, he should have to reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of this case.)
Lee. It would be interesting, if it were possible to see how much exculpatory evidence the prosecutor had or had access to.
While I have no moral objection to the death penalty, the prospect of a prosecutor with a yummy, highly visible case puts me off the actuality of it.
The same crooked DA’s office initiated bogus cases against DJT. A certain number of prosecutors are sociopaths.
==
While we’re at it, why wasn’t prosecution of this case time-barred?
I assume every prosecutorial decision in NYC is made on the basis of politics.
“Weinstein’s attorney Teny Geragos held Mann on the ropes during a brutal,…”
My one and only experience on a criminal trial jury was a shit show. Out of twelve people three were among the dumbest people I’ve ever met. One guy was evidently living out some fantasy of being that one guy from Twelve Angry Men, and we were “hopelessly deadlocked” 8-4 on the easiest case ever. The guy was just charged with possession even though it was clear he was dealing, a much more serious offense. He literally told the cops what he’d done with the drugs. Me and one woman (a chemist – very sharp) pretty much saw where this was going and formed a two person team making it clear there was no way we were voting “not guilty” no matter how long this trial went. Eventually we won the day, and I honestly think it was only because everyone wanted to go home. I looked up the details of the trial after it was all over and it turns out this guy had committed two violent felonies in the past. We damn near let him off.
Convicting someone is really hard. The deck is stacked to the defense. I suppose as it should be.
Please note, Weinstein is already in prison on a sex offense conviction and it will be years before he’s eligible for parole. They invested a mess of manpower in bringing this sketchy charge just to add an increment to his sentence.
Any woman who made the beast with two backs with Harvey, regardless of compulsion should automatically be awarded damages for simply enduring it.
Miscommunication/ misconception starts BEFORE the act itself.
Could not agree more. As much as intimidation and outright physical violence is used by men to accomplish rapes, it is often impossible to fairly and successfully prosecute criminal charges against the man under circumstances where there is any kind of consensual behavior and relationship between the two parties.
It’s just not beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t have to excuse sexual assault in order to fully support acquittal in these cases.
I once sat on a Grand Jury.
One of the cases involved an alleged rape.
I don’t know how many men on the jury believed the woman – but NONE of the women did.
Heard a radio shrink type talking to a caller about the caller having been raped.
“I said no.”, said the caller.
The shrink said “No is part of sex play. What happened next?”
The next part convinced the shrink that it really was rape.
However, to the extent a prosecutor has no more, a defense attorney can make the case, is “no sufficient to convict in the mind of the usual jurors?
Sorry to say this about pigs, but Weinstein was a pig. Transactional, or almost contractual sex with him would leave a mark on a woman’s soul. Later….
For women who know they could, or possibly already have, done infinitely better for bed partners….ugh.
So…..does it tun into rape over time?
@ Richard Aubrey > “So…..does it turn into rape over time?”
I think you might be onto something there, especially when the defendant has already been judged (legally or socially) to be a rapist. In that case, anything “You” did consensually really wasn’t, so whatever happened MUST have been rape as well.
However, with regard to why the prosecutors keep re-trying this case: Weinstein was the first of the big name #MeToo cases, and the biggest legal win IIRC. After that, cases became increasingly less heinous, or more ambiguous, AND the charges were taking down too many Democrats, while the “movement” was intended to target Republicans. So, the Left has to “get their money’s worth” out of Weinstein.
That ties back to the first point, and may be why the woman who accused Trump (and did NOT get a “guilty of rape” verdict) may have convinced herself that she was right, even though she couldn’t remember any of the details: everybody SAYS Trump is a racist, so he must have raped ME.
As Neo said a couple of years ago, though, the whole thing looks like it was fabricated with malice aforethought.
https://thenewneo.com/2022/11/26/the-attempt-to-revive-a-sexual-assault-case-against-trump/
At least Ms Mann knew the time and place of the event she alleged was rape.
richf –
The jury in this case followed your experience. Three men on the jury wanted a conviction. All of the women were for acquittal.
The men viewed themselves as White Knights, defending the powerless. A cynic (who, me?) might say that the ladies recognized a ploy that they had contemplated or used themselves.