Manhattan prosecutors have strongly urged a judge to dismiss Harvey Weinstein's attempts to overturn his June sexual assault conviction, calling his claims of jury bullying and threats during deliberations "inconsistent and implausible." The disgraced movie producer's legal team had submitted sworn statements from two jurors who claimed they felt pressured into voting guilty.
The Prosecution's Strong Rebuttal
In their Wednesday submission, prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney's office argued that Weinstein's bid to set aside his guilty verdict "utterly fails, on both the law and the facts." The prosecution team, including Matthew Colangelo, Nicole Blumberg, Shannon Lucey and Becky Mangold, emphasized that the jurors' claims provided no legal basis for challenging the conviction.
The prosecutors pointed to centuries-old legal principles that protect verdict finality and prevent jurors from being "harassed or annoyed by litigants seeking to challenge the verdict." They noted they deliberately avoided interviewing any jurors before responding to the defense claims because doing so would "cause the very harms" these legal protections were designed to prevent.
Conflicting Juror Accounts
Weinstein's defense team, led by attorney Arthur Aidala, had submitted affidavits last month from two jurors who expressed regret about their guilty votes. One juror claimed she was screamed at in the jury room and told, "we have to get rid of you." Another juror stated that anyone expressing doubts about Weinstein's guilt faced intense grilling from other panel members.
However, prosecutors highlighted significant inconsistencies in these accounts. They noted that one juror who now claims to have witnessed "threats" and "intimidation" had previously described the jury room dynamics as "playground stuff" during deliberations. Immediately after the trial, the same juror told reporters, "it's not like a fight was going to break out. No, obviously not."
The Deliberation Drama
The five-day deliberation period was notably contentious, with tensions spilling into public view. One juror asked to be excused, claiming another juror was being treated unfairly. The foreperson complained that some jurors were pressuring others to change their minds, and reported that one juror suggested they would "see me outside" after sticking to his opinion.
Judge Curtis Farber maintained strict control over the process, repeatedly reminding jurors that "tension and conflict" is normal during deliberations. Transcripts show he cautioned jurors against discussing the content or tone of their private discussions. However, the two dissenting jurors claimed in their affidavits that they didn't feel the judge was willing to listen to their concerns.
The 73-year-old Oscar-winning producer was convicted of first-degree criminal sex act for forcing oral sex on production assistant Miriam Haley in 2006. The conviction carries a potential 25-year prison sentence. Weinstein was acquitted on a second criminal sex act charge involving Polish psychotherapist Kaja Sokola, while the judge declared a mistrial on the rape charge involving former actor Jessica Mann after the jury foreperson declined to deliberate further.
This represents Weinstein's second trial on these charges after his landmark 2020 conviction, which was overturned last year. Judge Farber will deliver his ruling on December 22, determining whether the conviction stands or if Weinstein faces another retrial. The producer has been incarcerated since 2020 and is also appealing a separate California conviction.
