LOS ANGELES (AP) — Most of the jurors at Harvey Weinstein’s Los Angeles trialwere ready to convict him of crimes related to three of the four women he wascharged with raping or sexually assaulting.
Yet after weeks of deliberation the eight men and four women voted unanimouslyto convict him of crimes against only one: a Russian-born model and actorknown as Jane Doe 1. She lived in Rome and was visiting California for a filmfestival at age 34 in 2013, when she said the now-disgraced film mogulappeared uninvited at her Los Angeles hotel room door in the middle of thenight.
The jurors were released from service and allowed to talk publicly after morethan two months Tuesday, when they could not reach a unanimous decision on twoaggravating factors that might have made for a higher sentence. Theirdeliberations took nine days spanning more than two weeks, but those who spoketo reporters said the talks were never contentious.
Weinstein was found guilty of one count of rape and two counts of sexualassault against Jane Doe 1. He now faces up to 18 years in prison inCalifornia to go with a 23-year sentence for a rape and sexual assaultconviction in New York.
Jurors said that Jane Doe 1’s composure, and the fact that she did not contactWeinstein after he raped her, allowed the divided group to reach consensus onher accusations.
“I thought Jane Doe 1 was very convincing in her story,” said one juror, a62-year-old man who works in banking and only provided his first name,Michael, because he sought to maintain privacy amid the publicity surroundingthe case .
The physical and technical evidence surrounding Jane Doe 1 was some of thethinnest at the trial, but jurors were told that under the law, if they foundan accuser’s story credible, that alone could be enough to convict.
They acquitted Weinstein on a count of sexual battery against a massagetherapist. They were deadlocked, with 10 of 12 voting for guilt, on a count ofsexual battery against model Lauren Young; and voting 8-4 in favor ofconviction on rape and sexual assault counts involving Jennifer Siebel Newsom,a documentary filmmaker and wife of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Story continues
The Associated Press does not name people who have said they were sexuallyabused, unless they come forward publicly or have given consent through theirattorneys, as Young and Siebel Newsom have.
Jane Doe 1 only one among them who had no further direct dealings withWeinstein or his representatives after the incident. She testified she hadbarely known who he was, having been introduced only briefly at the filmfestival, and wanted nothing from him. Others, including Siebel Newsom, hadfriendly email exchanges with Weinstein or sought out future meetings aftertheir incidents, a point the defense pounded in their cross-examinations andclosing arguments.
That resonated with some judges.
Michael said he voted to convict on the Jane Doe 1 counts, but reluctantlyvoted to acquit on the counts involving Siebel Newsom. The difference, hesaid, was the women’s “subsequent action.”
“In a 2 ½ year period she had sent Mr. Weinstein about 35 emails,” he said ofSiebel Newsom. “She wanted access to Harvey Weinstein. It sounded like shewanted access to a lot of his resources. It raised a reasonable doubt in mymind.”
Weinstein has repeatedly denied engaging in any non-consensual sex. Hislawyers called some of the encounters in the charges consensual and othersflat-out fabricated, including the story told by Jane Doe 1. They pointed outthat prosecutors had not even produced independent evidence to place Weinsteinat her hotel.
“Jane Doe 1 is lying. Period,” Weinstein lawyer Alan Jackson said in hisclosing argument.
One juror suggested that the broad statement was undermined by defensearguments that engaged with the details of Jane Doe 1’s account.
“I think Jackson’s last comment where Harvey just wasn’t there, hurt him,”said the juror, Arnold Esqueda, who works as director of security for the LosAngeles Department of Water and Power. “They were defending all these things,and then they just say he’s not there. Well they should have just said he’snot there.”
He said he and other jurors made that point to a “very old school” man on thejury who who “decided that he was going to vote guilty on that one. He stayedpretty much not guilty on the rest.”
While tearful at times, Jane Doe 1’s testimony was restrained andstraightforward in comparison to some that followed. She spoke slowly with aRussian accent, and made nearly no use of a translator on hand.
Esqueda said the intensely emotional testimony of Siebel Newsom, who wasscreaming through tears at times during her testimony, might have been toomuch for some fellow jurors. The panel was divided 6-6 on the counts involvingher when he suggested getting a read-back of her testimony from the courtreporter.
“She had a little drama,” Esqueda said. “So I suggested let’s re-read it, andI think after we read it it switched a couple of people in her favor, withoutthe drama.”
Changes over time in the massage therapist’s story helped lead jurors toacquit on that count, Michael said.
Judge Lisa Lench tentatively scheduled Weinstein’s sentencing for Jan. 9 afterhis attorneys asked that it be done promptly.
But Lench said it might not happen so quickly given the issues surrounding thecase, including prosecutors’ pending decision on whether or not to retry thedeadlocked counts.
“We’ll need to consult the victims first and foremost,” Deputy DistrictAttorney Paul Thompson said.
He asked the judge if other Weinstein accusers, including some who testifiedagainst him at trial but were not part of the charges, and the women whosecounts were deadlocked, might give victim impact statements at the sentencing.
Lench promptly rejected the idea.
“I’m not going to make this an open forum on all of the allegations that werepresented in this trial,” she said.
“So it’ll just be Jane Doe 1 then,” Thompson replied.
Follow AP Entertainment Writer Andrew Dalton on Twitter:https://twitter.com/andyjamesdalton
For more on the Harvey Weinstein trial, visit: [https://apnews.com/hub/harvey-