‘Nothing Was Black and White’

For 10 days, the jurors on the Harvey Weinstein trial debated issues ofconsent, morality, the casting couch and power imbalances in Hollywood.

At the end of their deliberations Monday, they reached a mixed verdict. Theyfound the disgraced producer guilty of raping a woman known as Jane Doe #1,but acquitted him of a sexual battery of Jane Doe #3. They were deadlocked oncharges involving two other women, one of which is Jennifer Siebel Newsom, thewife of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

More from Variety

When they were released from the case Tuesday afternoon, three jurorsexplained how they arrived at that outcome. Speaking to variety at thecourthouse, they said that while they empathized with all of the women, it wassometimes hard to determine what had happened beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Everybody seemed very believeable — it’s just hard to prove all of it, withtime and memory. It’s just their word,” said Jay, a mechanic supervisor whodid not provide his last name. “Nothing was black and white. Nothing was superclear.”

Siebel Newsom tested that Weinstein raped her in 2005, when she was an up-and-coming actress and filmmaker. Several jurors said they were troubled that shehad exchanged dozens of emails with Weinstein after the alleged rape. In thoseemails, she sought meetings with Weinstein and asked for campaigncontributions on behalf of her husband, who was the mayor of San Francisco atthe time.

Michael, another juror, a 62-year-old who works in banking, said that he votedto convict Weinstein on Jane Doe #1 and #2. But he voted to acquit on SiebelNewsom’s allegations.

“I was considering the situation while also looking at her subsequentactions,” he said. “She wanted access to Harvey Weinstein and it sounded likeshe wanted access to a lot of his resources too… That did raise somereasonable doubt in my mind.”

Story continues

Jay was also troubled by the communications and meetings between Siebel Newsomand Weinstein: “It looked like they just had a relationship.”

Asked if there was anything the prosecution could have done differently tosecure a conviction, Jay said, “Maybe make the emails go away.”

The jury ultimately voted 8-4 in favor of convicting Weinstein on the SiebelNewsom charges. Another juror, Arnold Esqueda, said the vote was divided 6-6earlier in the deliberations.

Some of the jurors found her testimony to be overly dramatic, said Esqueda,who works as a security guard for the LA Department of Water and Power. Hesaid that he suggested that they all re-read the transcript, which allowedthem to focus on her words and not on her presentation.

“That switched a couple of people without the emotion,” Esqueda explained.

Some of the jurors saw the allegations through the prism of the “castingcouch,” picking up on a defense argument that the women had willingly engagedin “transactional” sex.

Michael said the testimony was like “pulling back the curtain on a section ofthe entertainment industry where flexible morals was a way of doing business.”

He argued that the “casting couch” has been a part of Hollywood for 100 yearsand transactional sex goes back to Biblical times.

“Now it’s, ‘If you want to have sex with me, you gotta greenlight my career,’”he said. “’If you want to have sex with me, you gotta push my books and myscripts. If you want to have sex with me, you’re gonna have to give me fullaccess to you and all your resources.’ Those are things that go on. Morally Idon’t think it’s right… At the end of the day they’re making decisions that —ultimately, they’re trying to further a career.”

Michael believed that two of the “prior bad acts” witnesses — Natassia M. andKelly S. — hurt the prosecution’s case because they appeared to concede thatthey were “playing the game” with Weinstein in hopes of advancing theircareers.

“If I was the prosecutor I would have not had them testify,” Michael said.“Those two almost proved the defense’s case… It’s an industry of flexiblemorals. I’m sure all these women hated every second of what was going on, butthis is how the industry is.”

The “casting couch” defense did not work on Jane Doe #1, however. Shetestified she barely knew who Weinstein was before meeting him at the LAItalia Film Festival in February 2013, stating she had only minimal contactwith him after he raped her at the Mr. C Beverly Hills hotel.

The defense argued that Jane Doe #1 had simply made up the entire sexualassault — and that neither she nor Weinstein had been in her hotel room thatnight. The jury did not buy that argument.

“I think the consensus was, their argument that he was never there — we justfelt like he was,” Jay said. “It looked like he probably was there.”

All three judges who spoke with variety suggested that the argument hurt thedefense’s credibility. With a different approach, it appeared that the defensecould have won a mistrial on those counts.

“I personally feel they would have had a lot more to work with had they saidhe was there,” Michael said.

The jurors voted 10-2 in favor of convicting Weinstein of sexual batteryagainst Jane Doe #2, Lauren Young. Ultimately, they landed deadlocked on thatcount. One juror revealed that the two holdouts were swayed by the defense’sargument that Young’s dress had a button above the zipper, which would havemade it difficult for Weinstein to undress her.

“I thought it was a slam dunk,” said Esqueda, who voted to convict on thatcharge pertaining to Young. He said the others believed that the dress wouldnot have come off her shoulders. “If we could have shown it got off hershoulders, it could have had a solid case.”

The jurors said that the deliberations were respectful, and did not becomecontentious. Esqueda acknowledged that one juror was “stubborn” and initiallyvoted not guilty on all charges. That juror was eventually persuaded toconvict on Jane Doe #1.

They said that Gov. Newsom and his politics were not discussed and were not afactor. The jurors also said that Weinstein’s past conviction and theavalanche of accusations against him did not come up during deliberations.

“Everyone realized the weight of this trial,” Michael said. “The #MeToomovement raises a lot of extremely important issues… Predators have to knowthat type of behavior is wrong. It’s criminal and it will be prosecuted.”

Michael continued, stating that a main message of the trial is that if a womanis trapped in such a situation, she should get to safety as quickly aspossible. “Go to the police,” he said. “Report it. And for God’s sake do notcontinue to do business with this person.”

Regarding the casting couch, Michael said, “It’s time that it stops — itreally is.”

“These people are getting basically what they deserve,” he said, referring topredators who have been exposed by the #MeToo movement.

Michael added that it was difficult, however, for jurors to determine whathappened many years later, without any video or audio of the incident and withlittle to go on aside from the accuser’s word.

“Just because someone is found not guilty, it doesn’t mean they’re innocent,”he said. “It just means the facts weren’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Best of Variety

Click here to read the full article.