Harvey Weinstein Convicted of Assaulting One of Four Accusers

A California jury has found Harvey Weinstein guilty on 3 of the 7 counts against him. All three counts pertained to a "Jane Doe #1", an Italian model who testified Mr. Weinstein attacked her in her hotel room at the "Mr. C Hotel" in February 2013. Here's a recap of Jane Doe #1's testimony and her daughter's testimony .

The jury acquitted Weinstein of sexual battery as to Jane Doe 3, a massage therapist, and hung on counts of sexual battery by restraint pertaining to Jane Doe 2, who has been publicly identified as Lauren Young, an actress and screenwriter.

The jury also hung on three counts, pertaining to Siebel Newsom (wife of CA. Gov. Gavin Newsom), who alleged Weinstein raped her at the Peninsula Hotel 18 years ago. During the trial she testified:

 “I could tell he just needed, he was so determined, just so scary, just all about him and his pleasure, his need for satisfaction, so I just did it to make it stop,” Siebel Newsom told the jury.


In the defense closing:

[A]ttorney Alan Jackson focused on Siebel Newsom’s testimony, mocking it as “a theatrical, overly dramatized performance” for the court. “Jane Doe #4 cannot square in her mind the idea that she’s a successful, well educated, well-bred refined woman who had consensual sex with Harvey Weinstein in exchange for opportunity and access,” the Werksman Jackson & Quinn LLP partner said, stressing the importance of reasonable doubt to the panel of eight men and four women.

Weinstein was initially charged with 11 counts of sexual assault, but in November, four charges related to a victim known as Jane Doe 5 were dropped, leaving him with 7 counts. The charges included two counts of rape and five counts of sexual assault, all occurring from 2004 (18 years ago) to 2013.

In addition to the testimony of the four Jane Doe's, the Court allowed eight other women to testify as to uncharged "prior bad acts".

So the jury found Weinstein guilty of counts pertaining to only one person --Jane Doe 1. It rejected the charges as to Jane Doe 2 (a massage therapist who claimed sexual battery), and it hung on charges pertaining to Jane Doe 3 and 4.

I don't think the verdict is anything for the DA's office to gloat about. I think the headline should be "Weinstein Jury Hears from 12 Women, Convicts as to One".

It sounds to me like Weinstein's attorneys Alan Jackson and Mark Werksman brought home the bacon with their reasonable doubt argument and the theme that this was transactional sex, where the women were bargaining for something in return (such as acting roles or selling screenplays). (I like Jackson's line "Truth is not a hashtag.")

As it stands right now, Weinstein is looking at a sentence of 18 to 24 years behind bars based on Monday’s guilty verdicts.

18 to 24 years for a one night encounter with one woman whose corroboration was the testimony of her daughter?

Harvey Weinstein's New York conviction is on appeal. This conviction will also be appealed. Legally, if he dies while an appeal is pending, his conviction in that case will be erased -- abated from its inception ("void ab initio").

That's what happened with Enron's Ken Lay who died while he was appealing his conviction. Here's the Judge's decision in that case:

In Durham v. United States, 91 S. Ct. 858, 860 (1971) (per curiam), the Supreme Court adopted the so-called "abatement rule," holding that "death pending direct review of a criminal conviction abates not only the appeal but also all proceedings had in the prosecution from its inception.

< Trump Referred for Criminal Prosecution For July 6 Events | Congress Deleted Free PACER From Spending Bill, OKs Solar Aid to Mexico >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Is there some reason I was not aware of (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 20, 2022 at 03:08:10 PM EST
    to think that Weinstein may have less time to live than the typical duration of a California criminal sentencing and appeal?

    Well, according to defendant, he is in (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 20, 2022 at 04:54:43 PM EST
    very poor health.

    That's not likely the most (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 20, 2022 at 07:18:42 PM EST
    reliable source.

    His lawyers (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Dec 21, 2022 at 07:02:16 AM EST
    tell the court there is

    His teeth have rotted and he's legally blind. And he has diabetes and other stuff and he had some awful bacterial infection and it goes on and on.


    Prison health care is the pits (none / 0) (#5)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 21, 2022 at 09:42:59 AM EST
    Dental care is awful, and standard care for diabetes is basically non-existent. And that's in the federal prison system, where nearly all my clients are, which is supposedly much better than most state prisons (dunno about California specifically). So those reports are credible. But painful and frightening as both of those conditions are, neither is a terminal illness or a diagnosis that generates an especially short life expectancy.

    He has been in LA County custody. (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 21, 2022 at 08:03:36 PM EST
    And his attorney made false representations to the trial judge re conditions.

    Conditions in LA County (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 22, 2022 at 02:05:31 PM EST
    have been described at various times as 'barbaric' and 'a living hell.'

    If anything, it's possibly worse than the conditions inside the Federal system, when it comes to problems like overcrowding and violence and the lack of access to basic medical attention etc


    they don't describe it that way. But, also, they were "only" in for a month or two, so perhaps long timers may have it differently.

    Having defended the state against (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 22, 2022 at 03:58:10 PM EST
    federal  civil rights allegations of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, yes, there are lapses.  But the system in general provides better medical care for inmates than many people who are not incarcerated have access to.  

    Have you done an (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 22, 2022 at 06:08:17 PM EST
    in-depth study of the general populace's experience with healthcare access in the U.S in order to test-out that assertion/hypothesis?

    Also, anyone with even a primitive, rudimentary sense of the effect of environment on human's psychological state would factor in as part of the  health picture the stresses brought about by overcrowding,inadequate nutrition, proximity of the violent to the non-violent etc Factors that generally don't effect the non-incarcerated near to the extent they do the incarcerated.


    That is quite a dismissve comment. (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 22, 2022 at 08:08:08 PM EST
    The first draft was worse (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 22, 2022 at 08:09:19 PM EST
    Well, that's a comfort. (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 22, 2022 at 08:41:40 PM EST
    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#15)
    by jmacWA on Fri Dec 23, 2022 at 04:09:43 AM EST