Harvey Weinstein trial

Bob001 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Absolutely.

But by the same token, he could at least have earned a smattering of PR brownie points (if not sentencing brownie points) by asking to make a short (but very carefully crafted by his lawyers...) statement to the court after the verdict, in which he apologised to the victims concerned and pledged to address his behaviour constructively.

However, at the same time, one has to remember that Weinstein very likely faces criminal charges of a very similar nature (and based on very similar alleged events) in California, plus it seems a near-certainty that he will attempt an appeal against the NY convictions. So it's a tricky area for him when it comes to "owning" his NY convictions and expressing remorse etc.
 
Elaedith said:
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.
Click to expand...

On GoodReads she had bene posting books that she was reading, but did not write any reviews until the trial (and appears to have not written any reviews since). My guess is she was bored sitting around the courthouse and not being able to read the news or goon social media or anywhere the trial might be discussed. So she decided to write some reviews to pass the time.

Elaedith said:
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.
Click to expand...

So she read a novel several months before the trial that is somewhat similar to the issues in the trial and she wrote a review. I can't see how that would disqualify a juror. In a trail for bank robbery the court isn't going to dismiss every potential juror who has read a book or seen a movie or television program that involves a bank robbery.

Elaedith said:
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.
Click to expand...

The defense had the opportunity to argue that in court. They had the opportunity to ask her why she is saying that the book has nothing to do with predatory older men when that is what it says on her website and her publisher's website.

I don't know why she denied having written book reviews during the trial. Maybe she was confused and thought the judge was asking about the book that they had discussed before. Or maybe someone else wrote the reviews on her account. I don't think either of those are the case; it would require additional questioning to be sure. I can understand the judge's reluctance to declare a mistral and start over from scratch over such a small matter, especially when it appears the issue at hand was whether she was violating the court order to avoid social media where the case is being discussed.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
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.
Click to expand...


And on this, it really must have been a gambler's decision for Weinstein and his lawyers. After all, they had three potential options in the NY trial:

1) Plead guilty to all charges pre-trial and make the strongest possible appeal for clemency from the sentencing judge;

2) Agree some form of plea bargain with State prosecutors, pleading guilty to a lesser set of charges, and appeal for clemency in sentencing (and this option would only even be possible if the State were prepared to accept a plea bargain in this case....);

3) Plead not guilty, and allow the charges to be tried by a jury - with the understanding that if the jury returns guilty verdicts on any of the charges, there's a higher likelihood of harsher sentencing on these convictions.


Given that Weinstein and his lawyers have long known that further criminal charges are pending in California for similar-pattern (alleged) offences, I'd have thought that both (1) and, to a lesser degree, (2) would be highly risky strategies for the NY charges - because they'd very probably make the likelihood of convictions in California a lot higher (assuming the allowance of similar fact evidence).

So in reality, Weinstein & lawyers probably knew that going down the (1) or (2) route would lead to probable significant jail time in NY, followed by significant jail time in California. I think that, from a pure probability-expectation perspective - based on the reasonable opinion that convictions on these NY charges in a jury trial were very far from guaranteed - the least-bad strategy was to fight the NY charges in court (as indeed he did). And after all, if he'd beaten all of those NY charges at trial, it's possible that California might even have reconsidered whether to charge him at all (but even if they did charge him, his NY acquittals might well have helped him in any CA jury trial).

So, in my opinion, Weinstein actually had little option but to gamble by protesting his innocence and putting the charges to a jury. The gamble very slightly succeeded (inasmuch as he was acquitted on the two most serious charges), but taken as a whole, one would have to conclude that the gamble failed.
 
Last edited:
DevilsAdvocate said:
On GoodReads she had bene posting books that she was reading, but did not write any reviews until the trial (and appears to have not written any reviews since). My guess is she was bored sitting around the courthouse and not being able to read the news or goon social media or anywhere the trial might be discussed. So she decided to write some reviews to pass the time.



So she read a novel several months before the trial that is somewhat similar to the issues in the trial and she wrote a review. I can't see how that would disqualify a juror. In a trail for bank robbery the court isn't going to dismiss every potential juror who has read a book or seen a movie or television program that involves a bank robbery.



The defense had the opportunity to argue that in court. They had the opportunity to ask her why she is saying that the book has nothing to do with predatory older men when that is what it says on her website and her publisher's website.

I don't know why she denied having written book reviews during the trial. Maybe she was confused and thought the judge was asking about the book that they had discussed before. Or maybe someone else wrote the reviews on her account. I don't think either of those are the case; it would require additional questioning to be sure. I can understand the judge's reluctance to declare a mistral and start over from scratch over such a small matter, especially when it appears the issue at hand was whether she was violating the court order to avoid social media where the case is being discussed.
Click to expand...



In addition to all of this.....

.....isn't it even unclear as to how/why all of this might affect the woman's judgemental ability in this case? In fact, is it even clear whether these book reviews etc. might make this woman more likely to convict or to acquit on charges such as Weinstein's?
 
LondonJohn said:
And on this, it really must have been a gambler's decision for Weinstein and his lawyers. After all, they had three potential options in the NY trial:

<snip>

So, in my opinion, Weinstein actually had little option but to gamble by protesting his innocence and putting the charges to a jury. The gamble very slightly succeeded (inasmuch as he was acquitted on the two most serious charges), but taken as a whole, one would have to conclude that the gamble failed.
Click to expand...


You're assuming that Weinstein was making rational, odds-based decisions. And you're assuming that his lawyers, no matter how rational, could have talked him into any of this. All evidence indicates that Weinstein absolutely, fundamentally believes he did nothing wrong. He insisted on fighting for his innocence because, in his demented reality, he is innocent.

The most persuasive lawyer in the world can't force a client to take a plea. The lawyer can quit but, money being money, he/she has very good reason not to.
 
LondonJohn said:
In addition to all of this.....

.....isn't it even unclear as to how/why all of this might affect the woman's judgemental ability in this case? In fact, is it even clear whether these book reviews etc. might make this woman more likely to convict or to acquit on charges such as Weinstein's?
Click to expand...

I think it demonstrates a sympathetic view of the women, which would make it might likely that she convicts. I don't think there is bias, though.

A person who reads or writes such books could have all kinds of opinions. Maybe they identify with the men. Or identify with the women but feel that these were legitimate romantic relationships and not abuse. Or find the action of the men so clearly wrong that by comparisons the action of Weinstein seem less clear and open to reasonable doubt. Or who knows what.

However, both blurbs describe the men as "predatory" and the review describes the "repulsiveness of her predator" and characterizes the relationship as a "horror". I think that indicates a sympathetic view toward the female characters and against the predatory men.

If I were on the defense I wouldn't want her on the jury. I'm sure the defense wished they had another peremptory strike (or that they had used one of the previous ones).
 
LondonJohn said:
So, in my opinion, Weinstein actually had little option but to gamble by protesting his innocence and putting the charges to a jury. The gamble very slightly succeeded (inasmuch as he was acquitted on the two most serious charges), but taken as a whole, one would have to conclude that the gamble failed.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was a gamble. I see now that this was in New York, not Federal court. Sentencing is a bit different in New York, but they follow the same guidelines. It is a bit difficult too compare the potential years because at the Federal level parole was eliminated when the guidelines went into effect so that the court determines the actual sentence rather than judges over-sentencing and having the actual sentence determine by a parole board.

In looking at a similar Federal law, it would be a category 30. With no prior criminal history, that would be a base of about 8-10 years. If he accepted responsibility and admitted to the crime, that would take off 2 points. If he plead guilty, that would be another point off. That would be 27 points, which would be about 5.8-8 years. It about a 2 years decrease.

But that is just for one offense. If he plead guilty he would be sentenced for all five offenses, which would have been way more than those few years off. One charge carried a potential life sentence.

There is no reason to plead guilty (other than perhaps feeling a moral obligation to do so). Given his age and apparent health, and prison time is a long sentence, quite possibly even a life sentence.

That leaves little room for a plea deal. Given the seriousness of the charges and the publicity and the social importance of the case, the State isn't going to accept a small deal that would be acceptable to Weinstein.

His best option was to plead not guilty. My understanding is that the evidence is mostly he said/she said. Take a shot that at least one juror finds reasonable doubt.
 
LondonJohn said:
And on this, it really must have been a gambler's decision for Weinstein and his lawyers. After all, they had three potential options in the NY trial:

1) Plead guilty to all charges pre-trial and make the strongest possible appeal for clemency from the sentencing judge;

2) Agree some form of plea bargain with State prosecutors, pleading guilty to a lesser set of charges, and appeal for clemency in sentencing (and this option would only even be possible if the State were prepared to accept a plea bargain in this case....);

3) Plead not guilty, and allow the charges to be tried by a jury - with the understanding that if the jury returns guilty verdicts on any of the charges, there's a higher likelihood of harsher sentencing on these convictions.


Given that Weinstein and his lawyers have long known that further criminal charges are pending in California for similar-pattern (alleged) offences, I'd have thought that both (1) and, to a lesser degree, (2) would be highly risky strategies for the NY charges - because they'd very probably make the likelihood of convictions in California a lot higher (assuming the allowance of similar fact evidence).

So in reality, Weinstein & lawyers probably knew that going down the (1) or (2) route would lead to probable significant jail time in NY, followed by significant jail time in California. I think that, from a pure probability-expectation perspective - based on the reasonable opinion that convictions on these NY charges in a jury trial were very far from guaranteed - the least-bad strategy was to fight the NY charges in court (as indeed he did). And after all, if he'd beaten all of those NY charges at trial, it's possible that California might even have reconsidered whether to charge him at all (but even if they did charge him, his NY acquittals might well have helped him in any CA jury trial).

So, in my opinion, Weinstein actually had little option but to gamble by protesting his innocence and putting the charges to a jury. The gamble very slightly succeeded (inasmuch as he was acquitted on the two most serious charges), but taken as a whole, one would have to conclude that the gamble failed.
Click to expand...
You are forgetting one small fact that he knows, which is whether he was guilty or not.
 
Mark Geragos

Darat said:
You are forgetting one small fact that he knows, which is whether he was guilty or not.
Click to expand...
Attorney Mark Geragos might disagree. "I think the prosecutors would agree, maybe not publicly, they have moved the definition of what legal consent is. It’s not what it used to be. It’s become more legally permissive. Legal consent is now more in the eye of the beholder."
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Attorney Mark Geragos might disagree. "I think the prosecutors would agree, maybe not publicly, they have moved the definition of what legal consent is. It’s not what it used to be. It’s become more legally permissive. Legal consent is now more in the eye of the beholder."
Click to expand...

Aw, c'mon, when was violently overpowering and forcing yourself on someone legal? It might well be that women are more willing to go to the cops, and DAs are more willing to prosecute, but the act was always a crime. Going to your boss's hotel room at his demand or asking somebody for a job was never a consent to sex.
 
New Yorker article

Bob001 said:
Aw, c'mon, when was violently overpowering and forcing yourself on someone legal? It might well be that women are more willing to go to the cops, and DAs are more willing to prosecute, but the act was always a crime. Going to your boss's hotel room at his demand or asking somebody for a job was never a consent to sex.
Click to expand...
It would have been helpful if the interviewer had asked Mr. Geragos to explain what he meant in more detail. After a very quick reading of Ronan Farrow's article at The New Yorker, it seems to me that his misdeeds fall into broad spectrum.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
It would have been helpful if the interviewer had asked Mr. Geragos to explain what he meant in more detail. After a very quick reading of Ronan Farrow's article at The New Yorker, it seems to me that his misdeeds fall into broad spectrum.
Click to expand...

A broad spectrum of what? He forced numerous unwilling women over whom he held power to participate in a variety of sex acts of one kind or another. Even just preventing someone from leaving a room is false imprisonment and kidnapping. What do you think "isn't what it used to be?"
 
spectrum

Bob001 said:
A broad spectrum of what? SNIP What do you think "isn't what it used to be?"
Click to expand...
Regarding your first question, he was found guilty of rape in the third degree, but not rape in the first degree. IIUC correctly Mr. Farrow categorized some of Mr. Weinstein's actions as sexual harassment. That is all I meant.

Respectfully, your second question should be directed toward legal commenters who have said similar things or to Mr. Geragos himself. Did you read his interview?
 
Last edited:
More Weinstein documents revealed, including him begging the richest people he knew for help.
In the days following news reports about how he used his power to sexually assault women, Harvey Weinstein made a desperate plea for help in emails to two dozen influential people, including the billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Jeff Bezos.
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/nyregion/harvey-weinstein-bezos-bloomberg-aniston.html

He also wanted to see Jennifer Anniston killed.
But when Mr. Weinstein heard — incorrectly it turned out — that Ms. Aniston, the actress best known for her role on the television show “Friends,” had accused him of groping her, he wrote to his representative, “Jen Aniston should be killed.”
Click to expand...


His own brother hates him:
A month later, in a scathing letter, his brother, Bob Weinstein, called Mr. Weinstein a sexual predator and an abusive person who belonged in “hell.”
Click to expand...


To borrow a phrase, throw away the key.
 
theprestige said:
I think you just answered your own question.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I understand Federal sentencing guidelines and how they estimate actual time in prison vs the sentence handed down. But not how it works in NY State.

As for my quip comparing Cosby to Weinstein, the similarities are stark. Both were powerful, elderly wealthy multiple sex offenders and both finally are seeing justice.

Now I think the sentence for the specific convictions against Weinstein was over the top. Not that I think that Weinstein should ever see the light of day. Like Cosby and Trump, it's clear he is guilty of many many more offenses. He was a predator for decades and was able to use his power and money to delay his reckoning.

I'd rather that there isn't a trial in California, because the money could be spent in better ways.

I do think that Weinstein is paying a price that a lot of white men avoid that people of color routinely pay.
 
Bob001 said:
NYT story here. Even in front of the sentencing judge, no remorse, no regret, no understanding.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/nyregion/harvey-weinstein-sentencing.html

Still facing rape charges in California.
Click to expand...



The BBC News online report of the sentencing says that Weinstein DID express remorse in his address to the court (not that this delayed remorse helped him in a sentencing context, of course), but it sounds like this expression of "remorse" may well have been of the classic "non-apology apology" type, i.e. "I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my behaviour and actions" etc.

No surprise to see him get a sentence close to the top of the recommended range though......
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I don't think it was a gamble. I see now that this was in New York, not Federal court. Sentencing is a bit different in New York, but they follow the same guidelines. It is a bit difficult too compare the potential years because at the Federal level parole was eliminated when the guidelines went into effect so that the court determines the actual sentence rather than judges over-sentencing and having the actual sentence determine by a parole board.

In looking at a similar Federal law, it would be a category 30. With no prior criminal history, that would be a base of about 8-10 years. If he accepted responsibility and admitted to the crime, that would take off 2 points. If he plead guilty, that would be another point off. That would be 27 points, which would be about 5.8-8 years. It about a 2 years decrease.

But that is just for one offense. If he plead guilty he would be sentenced for all five offenses, which would have been way more than those few years off. One charge carried a potential life sentence.

There is no reason to plead guilty (other than perhaps feeling a moral obligation to do so). Given his age and apparent health, and prison time is a long sentence, quite possibly even a life sentence.

That leaves little room for a plea deal. Given the seriousness of the charges and the publicity and the social importance of the case, the State isn't going to accept a small deal that would be acceptable to Weinstein.

His best option was to plead not guilty. My understanding is that the evidence is mostly he said/she said. Take a shot that at least one juror finds reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...



True - and that's exactly what I concluded must have been his best option as well. But he and his lawyers would always have known that while the potential payoff of such a strategy would have been the most favourable possible outcome (full acquittals and potential rehabilitation, the possible dropping of any California charges), the potential risk was that he'd end up with the worst of all outcomes (convictions, high-tariff prison sentences, destruction of reputation, increased likelihood of charges and convictions in California). So it was always a high-risk/high-reward/high-penalty strategy.

I still personally think, however, that if I were in Weinstein's position I might have at least carefully considered examining whether a reasonable plea bargain was attainable - and if so, whether I ought to have taken such a deal (I certainly think that guilty pleas to all the original charges would ever have been a sensible option). One question we'll never now know an answer to is whether NY might have been prepared to drop the rape 1 charge - and maybe even also the predatory-sexual-assault charges - in return for guilty pleas to the rape 3 and sexual assault charges. And if he HAD taken that plea bargain, he'd a) have ended up with the same NY convictions, b) almost certainly have received a far lesser sentence than the one handed down today, and c) have gone at least some way to salvaging the remnants of his personal and professional credibility.

Though even if things had played out as above, it'd be hard to judge what effect that might have had (if any) on charging decisions in California, and what his pleas to any possible charges might have been. As it is, it seems extremely likely that he will now indeed be charged with serious criminal offences of a similar nature in CA, and it seems equally likely that he will plead not-guilty and go to trial.
 
acbytesla said:
Now I think the sentence for the specific convictions against Weinstein was over the top.
......
I'd rather that there isn't a trial in California, because the money could be spent in better ways.
....
Click to expand...

I dunno. The judge cut the max by about 25% despite evidence of his decades of depradation, and odds are he'll serve quite a bit less.

The reason for a trial in California on different charges is that if the NY convictions are ever jeopardized, he'll still stay behind bars for a California conviction. It's also a mechanism for giving justice to some of his other victims, instead of saying "We got him for some other stuff, so what he did to you doesn't matter."
 
Last edited:
Some people felt that Epstein got off too easy when he died in jail, instead of living in a cage for decades. Will we feel the same way if Weinstein checks out before he has to face the full state pen experience?
 
It's not a logical or rational thing, but yeah there is something unpleasant about someone who's been predatory for decades only getting justice basically on their way out.
 
Bob001 said:
I dunno. The judge cut the max by about 25% despite evidence of his decades of depradation, and odds are he'll serve quite a bit less.

The reason for a trial in California on different charges is that if the NY convictions are ever jeopardized, he'll still stay behind bars for a California conviction. It's also a mechanism for giving justice to some of his other victims, instead of saying "We got him for some other stuff, so what he did to you doesn't matter."
Click to expand...

I get why they're doing it. But there isn't a practical reason for it. It won't change that Weinstein is going to die in prison.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Some people felt that Epstein got off too easy when he died in jail, instead of living in a cage for decades. Will we feel the same way if Weinstein checks out before he has to face the full state pen experience?
Click to expand...


Well, he never will in any case. The worst place he'll be is the hospital ward of the prison which is very, very far from gen pop. Even if they fix him up and get him out of the hospital ward, he'll probably just go to protective custody like Cosby and OJ. It's not at all fun and you spend your days alone in a bare cell, but it's not gen pop.
 
I read the transcript of Wei9nstein's little speech before the court. Sorry, I can't find the page I read it on, but it was disgusting. He talked about building a hospital for people like him who get accused of sex crimes and get dragged through the mud as a result.

I tried - I really did - to shed a tear for ol' Harve. Nope, couldn't do it.
 
SezMe said:
I read the transcript of Weinstein's little speech before the court.
Click to expand...


It was absolutely bananas. He attempted to try to show remorse but absolutely failed. In fact, he betrayed a shameless misunderstanding of what he had been found guilty of. He talked about how he helped raise money for various good works (generally true, but he misleadingly made it sound like it was all his own money which it definitely wasn't). He said there were character witnesses who loved him but wouldn't go on the record for fear of the new anti-male stigma. And he appeared to say that he was trying to donate money to build a hospital for ... women who think they've been assaulted but haven't, maybe?

Take all of those things and put them in a blender, because his speech hopped back and forth between these issues at intervals that were completely random.

(link)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom