Harvey Weinstein challenges New York conviction as judge weighs jury misconduct claims

Harvey Weinstein is due back in a New York courtroom on Thursday as a judge considers whether to overturn his most recent sex crime conviction, following claims that jurors were bullied and intimidated into reaching a guilty verdict. The ruling could mark another pivotal moment in a legal saga that has stretched across seven years, multiple trials, and two states.

A case defined by reversals and retrials

The hearing is the latest chapter in the long-running prosecution of the former Hollywood power broker, whose downfall became a defining moment of the global #MeToo movement. Weinstein, 73, was convicted last year in New York of forcing oral sex on one woman. In the same trial, he was acquitted on a second charge involving another woman, while jurors failed to reach a verdict on a separate rape allegation, which prosecutors have said they intend to retry.

That outcome followed a turbulent path through the courts. Weinstein’s original New York conviction was overturned on appeal, leading to a retrial that ended with a split verdict and unresolved charges. Separately, he is appealing a rape conviction in Los Angeles, where he was sentenced to a lengthy prison term.

Weinstein has consistently denied all allegations of non-consensual sex. The accusations stem from a wave of sexual harassment and assault claims that surfaced publicly in 2017, triggering a reckoning in the entertainment industry and beyond. While Weinstein early on apologized for “the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past,” he has maintained that all sexual encounters were consensual.

Defense alleges jurors were coerced

At the heart of the current challenge is what Weinstein’s lawyers describe as a breakdown in jury deliberations during last year’s trial. They argue that verbal aggression, intimidation, and improper discussion among jurors undermined the integrity of the verdict.

During deliberations, several jurors took the unusual step of alerting the court to internal tensions. In exchanges that were partly conducted in open court, one juror complained of being “shunned” by others. The jury foreperson raised concerns that some members were verbally “pushing people” and referring to Weinstein’s “past” in ways he believed were inappropriate. Another juror, however, told the judge that deliberations were proceeding normally.

The situation escalated when the foreperson later returned to court, saying he felt pressured to change his views and feared for his safety after another juror allegedly said he would “see me outside.” The foreperson ultimately refused to continue deliberating.

Judge Curtis Farber, who presided over the trial, cited the secrecy of jury deliberations and instructed jurors not to reveal “the content or tenor” of their discussions. He denied repeated defense requests for a mistrial at the time.

Sworn statements filed after the verdict

Since the trial concluded, Weinstein’s legal team has interviewed two jurors, including one who had raised concerns during deliberations. In sworn statements submitted to the court, both jurors said they did not believe Weinstein was guilty but felt compelled to go along with the verdict because of what they described as verbal hostility from others.

One juror said she was so distressed by an encounter in which another panel member insulted her intelligence and suggested she be removed that she feared for her personal safety. According to her statement, she called two relatives that evening and asked them to check on her if they did not hear from her, saying “something was not right about this jury deliberation process.” Jurors’ names were redacted in the court filings.

Weinstein’s attorneys argue that these accounts point to threats and coercion serious enough to invalidate the verdict. They contend the judge failed to sufficiently investigate the complaints before allowing deliberations to continue. As a remedy, they are asking the court to set aside the conviction or, at minimum, hold an evidentiary hearing to examine what occurred in the jury room.

Prosecutors dispute misconduct claims

Prosecutors have pushed back, saying the judge was presented during the trial with what they characterized as “scattered instances of contentious interactions” and addressed them appropriately. They argue that post-trial sworn statements from jurors are inconsistent with other remarks made at the time.

In particular, prosecutors point to comments given to the media immediately after the verdict by one of the same jurors now supporting the defense motion. That juror said then that deliberations were marked by “high tension,” but did not describe coercion or threats.

The prosecution has also disputed claims that jurors improperly discussed Weinstein’s history. While the foreperson raised concerns about references to Weinstein’s past conduct, prosecutors say the topic was not entirely off-limits. Evidence and testimony during the trial included references to widely reported allegations from 2017, when dozens of women accused Weinstein of sexual misconduct spanning decades.

What the judge could decide

Judge Farber is expected to issue a decision on Thursday. His options include setting aside the conviction, ordering a hearing to further examine the jury issues, or letting the verdict stand without additional action. Any ruling is likely to be appealed, potentially extending the case even further.

Regardless of the outcome, Weinstein remains in custody in New York. Prosecutors have reiterated that they are prepared to retry him on the unresolved rape charge from last year’s trial. Separately, his appeal of the Los Angeles rape conviction continues to work its way through the courts.