Turmoil within the jury led a judge on Thursday to declare a mistrial for the one outstanding charge against tarnished film tycoon Harvey Weinstein, relating to a rape accusation made by erstwhile actress Jessica Mann. This occurred just a day after he was convicted for sexually violating her in his retrial held in Manhattan. Following an extensive eight-week hearing in Manhattan Supreme Court, the jury pronounced Weinstein, aged 73, guilty of carrying out a criminal sexual act against one-time TV production assistant Miriam Haley. However, they acquitted him of the similar charge pertaining to a second complainant, Polish fashion model Kaja Sokola.
The jury, however, found themselves unable to render a verdict on the case of the third complainant, Jessica Mann who used to be an actress. The head of the jury declined to resume deliberations with his colleagues, following his report on Wednesday, which claimed that he felt endangered by one of them, who had ominously suggested that they would ‘see him outside’. This mistrial implies that the prosecution now has to consider whether to bring forward Mann’s accusations at a third trial, potentially putting her through several more days of relentless torment of direct questioning and interrogation in the witness stand.
While Mann did provide testimony at Weinstein’s 2020 trial, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg confirmed to journalists on Thursday that they had consulted with Mann and agreed to hold another trial. Moreover, Mann herself declared on Thursday that she is prepared for a third round. ‘I will never relent on my own behalf and the pursuit of ensuring recognition for my voice—and the truth,’ communicated Mann in her proclamation on Thursday.
Expressing a show of defiance and resolve, Mann added, ‘I am more than ready, willing, and capable to withstand this ordeal as many times as it takes for justice to be meted out and for proper accountability to take its course. This day does not signify an end to my struggle.’ Nicole Blumberg, the Assistant District Attorney, also expressed the readiness of the prosecution to proceed, barring any instance where Weinstein decides to ‘accept responsibility’ and plead guilty. ‘We stand ready to initiate proceedings and retry the case,’ she asserted.
When queried why the prosecution was not considering dropping Mann’s accusations, District Attorney Bragg responded, ‘It’s about the survivors. Weinstein will be held responsible for his actions towards Ms. Haley and he will be served with a considerable jail term for that. However, the jury could not reach a determination regarding Jessica Mann, and she is worthy of such.’
Matters began to derail in relation to Mann’s case, with the jury head requesting thrice to confer with the judge and attorneys away from the other jury members. The jury head informed Justice Curtis Farber of the Manhattan Supreme Court on Wednesday that he had been threatened by another juror during a heated exchange when he refused to change his stance, with the disturbing words, ‘You gonna see me outside’.
Such a contentious circumstance led Weinstein’s legal representative, Arthur Aidala, to demand a mistrial, arguing that the jury head was a victim of a crime and Justice Farber should summon emergency services. The judge adjourned the sitting for the day, instructing the jury to return on Thursday, but not before inquiring about the verdict concerning the charges—where a clear decision had been reached in respect of Haley and Sokola.
On Wednesday, the jury head related to Farber that consensus on Haley and Sokola was achieved days ago, on Friday. The verdict was unanimous. Upon being questioned if he had been forced into concurring with the decision, he denied any coercion, asserting that it was his independent choice. He explained that one of the jurors confronted him outside when they all collectively left the premises on Wednesday.
The jury head expressed his willingness to return to the courthouse but was non-committal about resuming with the remaining jurors in the jury room. He confirmed his reluctance to continue on Thursday. When asked by Justice Farber if he was ready to move back into the jury room on the day and proceed with the deliberations, the jury head remorsefully responded negatively.
Aidala informed Justice Farber of his intention to appeal, revealing that his team would now serve as ‘prosecutors’ to unravel the incidents in the jury room. Aidala commented to the press outside the courthouse, ‘We possess compelling evidence suggesting gross misconduct of a juror in this trial. It’s unheard of that a full-grown man, in his late 30s and in robust health, articulating fears about returning to deliberations. If this does not cast suspicion on the verdicts here, nothing else would.’
In the aftermath of the trial, the jurors offered varying stories about the chaotic scenes during decision-making. Two of them explicitly pointed fingers at the jury head, accusing him of shirking his responsibilities, potentially due to personal circumstances at home. ‘He has been attempting to wriggle out from day one… His every move was surreptitious,’ opined juror, Chantan Holmes-Claborn to the press.
She claimed that the jurors were evenly divided on Mann’s case, but the jury head was unwilling to progress with the deliberations. ‘He unilaterally declared to us that by 2 o’clock, we better wholeheartedly come to a decision… And we contested, he cannot dictate the actions of people by imposing a 2 o’clock deadline.’
Juror No.1 expressed that the jury head was resisting the idea of changing his stance. ‘We had not concluded our deliberations… We hadn’t wrapped up our discussions’, said he. Yet another juror, No.7, who declined to reveal his identity, attributed the stress to ‘cabin fever’, but commiserated with some of the jury head’s declarations.
However, Mann, despite accusing Weinstein of raping her in 2013, admitted to having a complex relationship with him in the subsequent years. Both Haley and Sokola accused Weinstein of forcing them into oral sex in independent incidents that occurred in 2006. The jury members interviewed revealed that their decision on Haley and Sokola was unequivocal, with No.7 referencing Sokola’s personal recovery journal from alcoholism, which mentioned other people who had assaulted her sexually. Weinstein was only listed as someone who had supposedly promised help, but then later abandoned her. Weinstein faces up to four years’ incarceration owing to third-degree rape charges concerning Mann. The criminal sex act he was convicted of is a far graver misdemeanour, and carries the upper limit of a 25-year sentence. Incidentally, criminal sex act, formerly referred to as sodomy, signifies forced anal or oral intercourse. Irrespective of the verdict in the trial, Weinstein still has to serve a 16-year sentence ensuing from his conviction at a separate 2022 trial in Los Angeles for separate charges of rape and sexual assault.