Harvey Weinstein trial

catsmate said:
Expert in the field of rejection letters?
Characteristics of Rejection Letters and Their Effects on Job Applicants
Click to expand...

Indeed, there is a record that she has put some study into that field.

Now we can just wait for Chris_Halkides to join the dots on how that is really really important in this case. Shouldn't be long.

OT sidebar: I've been out of engineering for so long that my base knowledge is still good, but practically I could never go back to the field. How engineering is done has simply moved on while I was gone. I've been trying to find a way to describe that succinctly to people who ask about my engineering background and now I'm trying to figure out how to work "Robert Frost, wall construction expert" into that description. I probably won't, but if you see me force it somewhere around here you will know where it came from. And you'll know I was drinking or wanting a drink at the time.
 
website

Dr. Keith said:
The most obvious:
She is not the author of the website promoting the book and would not have used that language to describe her own work.
Click to expand...
What makes this "obvious? The website in question uses her name. Elsewhere on this site there are words in quotation marks and which are attributed to another person. Are the words in question attributed to someone else by name? Are there quotation marks around these words? In lieu of either of this things, can you show examples of quotes at authors' websites without attribution?
 
actual or implied bias

"Judges will also dismiss jurors who can’t put aside their feelings and apply the law impartially—that is, without actual or implied bias.
Actual Bias. Actual bias arises when potential jurors admit that they wouldn’t be able to be impartial. For example, a juror who states that she would never vote for a guilty verdict in any case because her religious beliefs prevent her from sitting in judgment of another would be excused for cause.

Actual Bias. Actual bias arises when potential jurors admit that they wouldn’t be able to be impartial. For example, a juror who states that she would never vote for a guilty verdict in any case because her religious beliefs prevent her from sitting in judgment of another would be excused for cause.

Implied Bias. Implied bias is present when potential jurors have character traits or personal experiences that make it unlikely for them to be able to be impartial, regardless of what they say during voir dire. So, a juror who is a close friend or relative of a key party, a witness, the judge, or an attorney for either side will be dismissed for cause. Bias is also implied when a would-be juror’s background or experience is likely to create a predisposition in favor of a party to the case." link
 
The prosecutor's sentencing letter is available to read on Scribd:

https://www.scribd.com/document/450504797/2020-03-06-Sentencing-Letter

It is long and damning and the prosecutor calls for "a lengthy prison sentence", without being more precise than that, and mentions "his total lack of remorse for the harm he has caused, and the need to deter him and others from engaging in further criminal conduct”
 
Matthew Best said:
The prosecutor's sentencing letter is available to read on Scribd:

https://www.scribd.com/document/450504797/2020-03-06-Sentencing-Letter

It is long and damning and the prosecutor calls for "a lengthy prison sentence", without being more precise than that, and mentions "his total lack of remorse for the harm he has caused, and the need to deter him and others from engaging in further criminal conduct”
Click to expand...

They are asking for the sentence to take into account alleged crimes in addition to those he was convicted of? Is that usual?
 
Elaedith said:
They are asking for the sentence to take into account alleged crimes in addition to those he was convicted of? Is that usual?
Click to expand...

Pattern of behavior reflecting his potential danger to the community. He won't actually be sentenced for anything except the crimes he was convicted of. Nothing stops a judge from giving the maximum sentence to a theoretical first offender.
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
They are asking for the sentence to take into account alleged crimes in addition to those he was convicted of? Is that usual?
Click to expand...

No, it is not unusual in Federal court (some state laws are different). That falls under Federal sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997).

Evidence considered for sentencing must only be true by a preponderance of evidence. The prosecution may ask for consideration of past conduct if it is more likely than not that the conduct occurred.

A person may not have been charged with a crime for a number of reasons, such as a statute of limitations. If a person was charged, certain conduct for one element of the crime may have been proven while another element was not proven. If a person has been acquitted of a crime, it can be argued that even though there is reasonable doubt, the person mostly likely committed the crime, or least committed the conduct related to the crime.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
No, it is not unusual in Federal court (some state laws are different). That falls under Federal sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997).

Evidence considered for sentencing must only be true by a preponderance of evidence. The prosecution may ask for consideration of past conduct if it is more likely than not that the conduct occurred.

A person may not have been charged with a crime for a number of reasons, such as a statute of limitations. If a person was charged, certain conduct for one element of the crime may have been proven while another element was not proven. If a person has been acquitted of a crime, it can be argued that even though there is reasonable doubt, the person mostly likely committed the crime, or least committed the conduct related to the crime.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I had a look at the case you cited. 'A jury's verdict of acquittal does not prevent a sentencing court from considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence'. In that case the District Court decided that certain acts were proved by preponderance of evidence despite acquittal on all or parts of the charges.
I am curious as to how it's proved that an act occurred by a preponderance of evidence in cases which were never brought to trial? The sentencing letter simply refers to 'investigations'. Is it up to the judge to decide if these meet the required standard?
 
Elaedith said:
Thanks for that. I had a look at the case you cited. 'A jury's verdict of acquittal does not prevent a sentencing court from considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence'. In that case the District Court decided that certain acts were proved by preponderance of evidence despite acquittal on all or parts of the charges.
I am curious as to how it's proved that an act occurred by a preponderance of evidence in cases which were never brought to trial? The sentencing letter simply refers to 'investigations'. Is it up to the judge to decide if these meet the required standard?
Click to expand...

It is up to the judge, except that it would be up to the jury to find on any facts that would increase a maximum or mandatory minimum sentence. For example, the law may prescribe a penalty range for a crime but increase the maximum sentence or impose a mandatory minimum sentence if the crime was committed with a gun. In that case, the jury would have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed with a gun.

There is a whole process of an interview, report, objections, and hearing. Federal sentencing goes through a guideline process where contributing and mitigating factors are put into a formula that gives a guideline range. The judge sentences within that range unless there is a basis to depart from that range.
 
staggering lack of empathy

Criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield's reflection is here. Mr. Greenfield quoted another source who wrote, "Ms. Illuzzi wrote that the acts recounted in the sentencing memo showed that Mr. Weinstein had 'displayed a staggering lack of empathy, treating others with disdain and inhumanity' throughout his professional life and that he had 'consistently advanced his own sordid desires and fixations over the well being of others.'" Mr. Greenfield went on to write that, "There is no crime of displaying a 'staggering lack of empathy,...'" I am not sure about the legal status of "treating others with disdain and inhumanity." Harvey Silverglate's opinion on the case is in the comments section.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
.....
Mr. Greenfield went on to write that, "There is no crime of displaying a 'staggering lack of empathy,...'" I am not sure about the legal status of "treating others with disdain and inhumanity." Harvey Silverglate's opinion on the case is in the comments section.
Click to expand...

But he's not being sentenced for "a staggering lack of empathy...'" or "treating others with disdain and inhumanity." He's being sentenced on the two violent sex crimes for which a jury has convicted him: rape in the third degree and sexual assault in the first degree. The question for the judge is whether there are any mitigating circumstances in his life history that should earn him a break. All of the evidence is that there aren't. For those two crimes alone, without any consideration of any prior misbehavior, he can be sentenced to up to 29 years.
 
the prosecutor's letter

Bob001 said:
But he's not being sentenced for "a staggering lack of empathy...'" or "treating others with disdain and inhumanity." He's being sentenced on the two violent sex crimes for which a jury has convicted him: rape in the third degree and sexual assault in the first degree. The question for the judge is whether there are any mitigating circumstances in his life history that should earn him a break. All of the evidence is that there aren't. For those two crimes alone, without any consideration of any prior misbehavior, he can be sentenced to up to 29 years.
Click to expand...
Then what is this and similar verbiage doing in the prosecutor's letter?
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Then what is this and similar verbiage doing in the prosecutor's letter?
Click to expand...


Because they can reasonably be considered as mitigating factors in the sentencing phase.

Perhaps another example might illustrate the principle more vividly: most people know that a convicted criminal who has never expressed remorse or contrition for his/her crime can expect to be sentenced more harshly than if he/she had expressed remorse/contrition. So a prosecutor might argue (when pressing for a harsh sentence) that Mr X has never expressed remorse or contrition for the crime. Yet there is no crime of failing to express remorse or contrition (viz: "there is no crime of displaying a staggering lack of empathy" in the Weinstein case....). It still, however, has the very real potential to increase the harshness of the sentencing.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Then what is this and similar verbiage doing in the prosecutor's letter?
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't it be? The judge will decide a sentence within a wide range. The question now is whether Weinstein deserves a break. The prosecutor is adding reliable information about what kind of person W. is and whether he is a continuing threat to the community, just as a probation office prepares a pre-sentence report weighing the defendant's entire history. You can be sure that the defense submitted letters claiming he loves puppies and was always good to his Mom.

An alternative would be to just sentence him to the full 29 for the crimes he's been convicted of and be done with him.
 
Bob001 said:
Why shouldn't it be? The judge will decide a sentence within a wide range. The question now is whether Weinstein deserves a break. The prosecutor is adding reliable information about what kind of person W. is and whether he is a continuing threat to the community, just as a probation office prepares a pre-sentence report weighing the defendant's entire history. You can be sure that the defense submitted letters claiming he loves puppies and was always good to his Mom.

An alternative would be to just sentence him to the full 29 for the crimes he's been convicted of and be done with him.
Click to expand...

The highlighted is what I'm curious about. How do you know it's reliable information? Usually when hearing about pre-sentencing reports they include mainly history of past proven offences and assessments by experts such as forensic psychiatrists regarding any behavioural risk factors.

This relates to my earlier question regarding whether all the accusations in the letter are already assumed proven by preponderance, based only on the prosecutor's investigation.
 
Elaedith said:
The highlighted is what I'm curious about. How do you know it's reliable information? Usually when hearing about pre-sentencing reports they include mainly history of past proven offences and assessments by experts such as forensic psychiatrists regarding any behavioural risk factors.

This relates to my earlier question regarding whether all the accusations in the letter are already assumed proven by preponderance, based only on the prosecutor's investigation.
Click to expand...

Sentencing is more art than science. The Federal government tried to make it more science-based using mandatory sentencing guidelines. Those guidelines are largely based on the types of clearly proven information you describe. The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory sentencing violates the Constitution, so now the guidelines are still done but are only advisory.

In terms of proof for guidelines, the standard is preponderance of evidence. That is based on evidence presented at trial, evidence submitted by the prosecution and defense, information obtained by the probation officer that writes the report, and information obtained during the pre-sentencing interview. Those facts can be disputed and new evidence presented during the hearing.

But the guidelines allow for a range of sentencing and are only advisory. The rest is simply left up to the judge. The judge can evaluate any facts as he sees fit.

Judges usually provide some basic justification for a sentence in order to avoid having the sentence overturned on appeal, but a judge doesn't have to provide an evaluation of all the facts and a detailed description of how he arrived at the sentence. The same is true for a jury. The jury hears the evidence and issues a verdict. Similarly, a judge hears the evidence and issues a sentence.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Sentencing is more art than science. The Federal government tried to make it more science-based using mandatory sentencing guidelines. Those guidelines are largely based on the types of clearly proven information you describe. The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory sentencing violates the Constitution, so now the guidelines are still done but are only advisory.
.....
Click to expand...


Are you sure about that? A quick search shows narrowly focused cases like this:
The US Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a mandatory minimum sentence issued at revocation of supervised release based on a new crime without a jury trial is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/06...e-during-supervised-release-unconstitutional/

But is there really a blanket ban on mandatory minimums? A lot of state crimes, like using a gun during a felony, carry mandatory minimums, not "recommended" minimums. I'd be surprised if they're all suddenly invalid.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Are you sure about that? A quick search shows narrowly focused cases like this:

https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/06...e-during-supervised-release-unconstitutional/

But is there really a blanket ban on mandatory minimums? A lot of state crimes, like using a gun during a felony, carry mandatory minimums, not "recommended" minimums. I'd be surprised if they're all suddenly invalid.
Click to expand...

Mandatory minimums are still allowed. I was talking about mandatory sentencing guidelines that required judges to issues sentences with the guidelines. That was overturned in United States v. Booker. (Note that the effect has been that judges issue more sentences longer than suggested by the guidelines.)

ETA: There are conditions where a judge can sentence less than a mandatory minimum.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
Indeed, there is a record that she has put some study into that field.

Now we can just wait for Chris_Halkides to join the dots on how that is really really important in this case. Shouldn't be long.
Click to expand...
I pride myself that I can usually link any two topics but no such link herewith springs to mind. Perhaps after this morning's client meeting when I attain a state of mental emptiness one will appear...
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield's reflection is here. Mr. Greenfield quoted another source who wrote, "Ms. Illuzzi wrote that the acts recounted in the sentencing memo showed that Mr. Weinstein had 'displayed a staggering lack of empathy, treating others with disdain and inhumanity' throughout his professional life and that he had 'consistently advanced his own sordid desires and fixations over the well being of others.'" Mr. Greenfield went on to write that, "There is no crime of displaying a 'staggering lack of empathy,...'" I am not sure about the legal status of "treating others with disdain and inhumanity." Harvey Silverglate's opinion on the case is in the comments section.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Gee there's so much straw3 flying around this forum is an explosion hazard...

Weinsten isn't being sentenced for "treating others with disdain and inhumanity", he's being sentenced for the crimes he was convicted of; the sentencing guidelines for which consider lack of remorse to be an aggravating factor.
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes: Gee there's so much straw3 flying around this forum is an explosion hazard...

Weinsten isn't being sentenced for "treating others with disdain and inhumanity", he's being sentenced for the crimes he was convicted of; the sentencing guidelines for which consider lack of remorse to be an aggravating factor.
Click to expand...

How does one plead not guilty and simultaneously display remorse?
 
burden

Dr. Keith said:
It is not a hypothesis. It is one of many possible explanations, which is all I ever offered.

It would be your burden to show that the words on the website are hers...Proving that she lied in court is not a trivial matter and you have not even come close to doing so.
Click to expand...
You offered an explanation of sorts. The onus is on you to back it up with evidence or to acknowledge that it was pure conjecture.
EDT
Your statement about proof is nonsense. First one has to agree on what level of proof is required. Based on the asymmetry of the outcomes, I offered one in comment #200.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
You don't. If you were truly remorseful, you would plead guilty and avoid putting your victims through the pain of a trial.
Click to expand...

Well that is sort of my point. Remorse implies guilt. If somebody pleads not guilty, they can't express remorse. If they are convicted and plan to appeal, they can't express remorse. If they fess up and say sorry only after being convicted, it would be unconvincing. It really only makes sense to expect it when somebody pleads guilty.
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
Well that is sort of my point. Remorse implies guilt. If somebody pleads not guilty, they can't express remorse. If they are convicted and plan to appeal, they can't express remorse. If they fess up and say sorry only after being convicted, it would be unconvincing. It really only makes sense to expect it when somebody pleads guilty.
Click to expand...

That is correct. A defendant generally only gets a reduction for accepting responsibility if they plead guilty, except in certain situation where they plead not guilty over a matter of law such as a Constitutional challenge. Acceptance of responsibility is based on primarily on pre-trial statements, not remorse shown only after trial and conviction.
 
Elaedith said:
Well that is sort of my point. Remorse implies guilt. If somebody pleads not guilty, they can't express remorse. If they are convicted and plan to appeal, they can't express remorse. If they fess up and say sorry only after being convicted, it would be unconvincing. It really only makes sense to expect it when somebody pleads guilty.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is exactly right. And exactly what Weinstein didn't do - he should have pleaded guilty and thrown himself on the mercy of the court.
 
Elaedith said:
Well that is sort of my point. Remorse implies guilt. If somebody pleads not guilty, they can't express remorse. If they are convicted and plan to appeal, they can't express remorse. If they fess up and say sorry only after being convicted, it would be unconvincing. It really only makes sense to expect it when somebody pleads guilty.
Click to expand...

Weinstein has never claimed he didn't actually do the acts he was accused of. He only claims that all sexual acts he's ever engaged in have been consensual. He's also made statements along the lines of "It was a different time, everybody does it," etc. He's never displayed the slightest understanding of the depths of his lifetime misconduct. The judge is entitled to take all that into account.
 
Matthew Best said:
Yes, this is exactly right. And exactly what Weinstein didn't do - he should have pleaded guilty and thrown himself on the mercy of the court.
Click to expand...

He very likely could have made a plea deal to stay out of court. Almost any deal he could have made would have left him better off than he is now. He actually thought he woulid walk.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
What makes this "obvious? The website in question uses her name. Elsewhere on this site there are words in quotation marks and which are attributed to another person. Are the words in question attributed to someone else by name? Are there quotation marks around these words? In lieu of either of this things, can you show examples of quotes at authors' websites without attribution?
Click to expand...

Chris_Halkides said:
You offered an explanation of sorts. The onus is on you to back it up with evidence or to acknowledge that it was pure conjecture.
EDT
Your statement about proof is nonsense. First one has to agree on what level of proof is required. Based on the asymmetry of the outcomes, I offered one in comment #200.
Click to expand...

You were confused about how she could say something in court that is not consistent with a website advertising her book. I have tried to help you with that confusion, not prove that she did not lie, just that you hadn't proved that it is a lie.

The conversation has moved on, but if this is actually a point of appeal I'll be happy to come back to it.
 
catsmate said:
I pride myself that I can usually link any two topics but no such link herewith springs to mind. Perhaps after this morning's client meeting when I attain a state of mental emptiness one will appear...
Click to expand...

I too was looking forward to this, but apparently things are going in a different direction.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
You offered an explanation of sorts. The onus is on you to back it up with evidence or to acknowledge that it was pure conjecture.
EDT
Your statement about proof is nonsense. First one has to agree on what level of proof is required. Based on the asymmetry of the outcomes, I offered one in comment #200.
Click to expand...

Regarding that juror - I checked the 'GoodReads' site and she does indeed appear to have posted a review of 'My Dark Vanessa' on 29th January as was claimed in court. She also states in the review that she read it some months before as an advanced reader copy (usually sent to somebody who knows the author or publisher, or has a reputation for being a suitable reviewer on the topic). According to what was reported, she said 'I don't know what you mean' when asked in court if she had posted a review. It seems odd that if she read it months earlier as an advanced copy she chose to post this in the middle of the trial.

According to the description blurb the book is about a woman who had an affair with a male teacher when she was 15, then is contacted 17 years later when the teacher is accused of sexual abuse "amid the rising wave of allegations against powerful men". She has to make a decision about whether to re-interpret a relationship that she had always seen as consensual. The juror refers to 'the repulsiveness of her predator' in her review.

Personally I think it's reasonable for the defence to argue the juror skirted information that could disqualify her, taking into account both the voir dire and the later questioning - even if it isn't likely to be successful grounds for appeal.

Coincidentally, a would-be juror dismissed at an early stage is apparently in trouble for having made joke tweets about how to use the trial to get publicity for his novel (on an unrelated topic) .

This also interests me in relation to the use of voir dire in the US, because we don't have the equivalent in the UK. Both sides have unlimited challenges for cause, but it is unclear if something like this would even be discovered under the UK system.
 
Last edited:
Guilding Light

"Age of Consent is about three young women in the 1980s, who negotiate fraught friendships, sexuality, class, and predatory older men on the journey from innocence to independence. The narrative takes place at a Connecticut boarding school and a summer spent in New York City."

Link to the Authors Guild page of the author in question. This is another location having the same quote as is found on a page giving the author's name and...hobby.
 
Bob001 said:
He very likely could have made a plea deal to stay out of court. Almost any deal he could have made would have left him better off than he is now. He actually thought he woulid walk.
Click to expand...



Well, a successful plea bargain wouldn't have meant he'd have stayed out of court: the crimes with which he was charged meant that even if the State had accepted guilty pleas to slightly lesser offences, those offences would almost certainly still have constituted felonies and sentencing in court before a judge. It's possible he might have avoided PRISON, but even there it's improbable that this would have happened.

And that's before we even come to consider whether the State would have accepted a plea bargain: this was a very high-profile case with far-reaching implications within and outside NY State. It also might very well be that Weinsteins attorneys had actually approached State prosecutors to ask whether they'd be open to any plea deals, to which they'd received the answer "No".

On top of all this........... it's very far from unlikely that Weinstein - via his experienced and expensive attorneys' advice and opinions - thought he could actually beat the whole case in a jury trial. And after all, many well-regarded jurists and legal commentators did think acquittals on all charges were a real possibility - and these were opinions that were voiced having witnessed the entire deposition, questioning and arguments stages of the trial, and while the jury was out deliberating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom