For 10 days, jurors in Harvey Weinstein’s trial debated issues of consent, morality, the casting couch, and power imbalances in Hollywood.
At the end of their deliberations on Monday, they reached a mixed verdict. They found the disgraced producer guilty of rape of a woman identified as Jane Doe #1, but acquitted him of sexual battery of Jane Doe #3. They deadlocked on charges involving two other women, one of whom was Jennifer Siebel Newsom, wife of California Governor Gavin Newsom.
When they were released from the case on Tuesday afternoon, three jurors explained how they came to that conclusion. Talking to diverse In court, they said that while they sympathized with all women, it was sometimes difficult to determine beyond a reasonable doubt what had happened.
“It all seemed believable—it’s hard to prove it all with time and memory. It’s just their word,” said Jay, the mechanical supervisor who didn’t give his last name. “There was nothing black and white. Nothing was very clear.”
Sibel Newsom testified that Weinstein raped her in 2005, when she was an aspiring actress and filmmaker. Several jurors said they were disturbed that she exchanged dozens of emails with Weinstein after the alleged rape. In these emails, she sought meetings with Weinstein and solicited campaign contributions on behalf of her husband, who was the mayor of San Francisco at the time.
Michael, another 62-year-old juror who works in banking, said he voted to convict Weinstein in Jane Doe No. 1 and No. 2. But he voted to acquit Siebel Newsom’s allegations.
“I was reflecting on the situation while also looking at her subsequent actions,” he said. “She wanted access to Harvey Weinstein and it was almost as if she wanted access to a lot of his resources as well… It raised a reasonable suspicion in my mind.”
Guy was also upset by the communications and meetings between Siebel Newsom and Weinstein: “It looked like they had just been in a relationship.”
Asked if there was anything the prosecution could have done differently to secure a conviction, Jay said, “Maybe it makes the emails go away.”
The jury ultimately voted 8 to 4 in favor of convicting Weinstein on the Siebel Newsom charges. Another juror, Arnold Esceda, said the vote had been split 6-6 earlier in the deliberations.
Esceda, who works as a security guard for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Energy, said some jurors found her testimony very interesting. He said he suggested they all re-read the script, which allowed them to focus on her words and not her presentation.
“It turned two people out of nowhere,” Esceda explained.
Some jurors viewed the allegations in terms of the “full sofa”, picking up a defense argument that the women had willingly engaged in “reciprocal” sex.
Michael said the testimony was like “drawing the curtain on a section of the entertainment industry where soft morals were a way of doing business.”
He argued that the “casting couch” has been a part of Hollywood for 100 years and that sexual transactions date back to biblical times.
“Now it is,” he said, “if you want to have sex with me, you must give the go-ahead to my career.” “If you want to have sex with me, you have to pay for my books and my writing. If you want to have sex with me, you are going to have to give me full access to you and all your resources. That’s the stuff that goes on. Morally, I don’t think it’s right…at the end Ultimately, they make decisions—ultimately, they try to further a career.”
Michael believes that two of the “past misdeeds” witnesses – Natasia M and Kelly S – hurt the prosecution’s case because they seemed to admit they were “playing the game” with Weinstein in hopes of advancing their careers.
“If I were the prosecutor, I wouldn’t have them testify,” Michael said. And these two almost nailed the defense case… It’s an industry that’s resilient in morals. I’m sure all of these women hated every second of what was going on, but that’s the industry.”
However, the “cast-couch” defense didn’t work for Jane Doe No. 1. She testified that she barely knew who Weinstein was before meeting him at the LA Italia Film Festival in February 2013, stating that she only had contact with him after he raped her at Mr. C. Beverly’s hotel. Hills.
The defense argued that Jane Doe #1 simply made up the entire sexual assault — and neither she nor Weinstein were in her hotel room that night. The jury did not accept this argument.
“I think the consensus was, their argument is that there never was — we just felt like it was there,” Gaye said. “Looks like he was probably there.”
All three jurors who spoke with diverse He suggested that the argument damage the credibility of the defence. In a different way, it seemed, the defense could have won a mistrial on these charges.
“I personally feel they would have had a lot more to work with if they had said he was there,” Michael said.
Juries voted 10-2 in favor of convicting Weinstein of sexual battery against Jane Doe #2, Lauren Young. In the end, they reached a dead end in this regard. A juror revealed that two jurors were swayed by the defense’s argument that Young’s dress had a button over the zipper, which would have made it more difficult for Weinstein to undress.
“I thought it was a slam dunk,” said Esceda, who voted to convict the Young charge. Others, he said, thought the dress would not have taken off her shoulders. “If we could show that it came down from its shoulders, it would have had a hard shell.”
Jurors said the deliberations were respectful and did not become controversial. Esqueda acknowledged that one of the jurors was “stubborn” and initially voted not guilty on all charges. This juror was eventually persuaded to convict Jane Doe No. 1.
Newsom’s governor and politics were not discussed, they said, and were not a factor. The jury also said that Weinstein’s previous conviction and the avalanche of charges against him did not come through during deliberations.
“Everyone understood the importance of this trial,” Michael said. “The #MeToo movement raises a lot of very important issues… Predators should know this kind of behavior is wrong. It is criminal and will be prosecuted.”
Michael continued, noting that the main message of the trial was that if a woman was ever trapped in such a situation, she should get to safety as quickly as possible. He said, “Go to the police.” “Report it. And for God’s sake, do not continue to deal with this person.”
Regarding the casting couch, Michael said, “It’s about time it stopped — it really is.”
“These people are basically getting what they deserve,” he said, referring to the predators the #MeToo movement has exposed.
Michael added that it would have been difficult, however, for the jury to determine what happened so many years later, without any video or audio of the incident and a few words apart from the defendant’s words.
“Just because someone is not guilty, it doesn’t mean they are innocent,” he said. “It just means that the facts have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
[ad_2]
