In the defense closing:
[A]ttorney Alan Jackson focused on Siebel Newsom’s testimony, mocking it as “a theatrical, overly dramatized performance” for the court. “Jane Doe #4 cannot square in her mind the idea that she’s a successful, well educated, well-bred refined woman who had consensual sex with Harvey Weinstein in exchange for opportunity and access,” the Werksman Jackson & Quinn LLP partner said, stressing the importance of reasonable doubt to the panel of eight men and four women.
Weinstein was initially charged with 11 counts of sexual assault, but in November, four charges related to a victim known as Jane Doe 5 were dropped, leaving him with 7 counts. The charges included two counts of rape and five counts of sexual assault, all occurring from 2004 (18 years ago) to 2013.
In addition to the testimony of the four Jane Doe's, the Court allowed eight other women to testify as to uncharged "prior bad acts".
So the jury found Weinstein guilty of counts pertaining to only one person --Jane Doe 1. It rejected the charges as to Jane Doe 2 (a massage therapist who claimed sexual battery), and it hung on charges pertaining to Jane Doe 3 and 4.
I don't think the verdict is anything for the DA's office to gloat about. I think the headline should be "Weinstein Jury Hears from 12 Women, Convicts as to One".
It sounds to me like Weinstein's attorneys Alan Jackson and Mark Werksman brought home the bacon with their reasonable doubt argument and the theme that this was transactional sex, where the women were bargaining for something in return (such as acting roles or selling screenplays). (I like Jackson's line "Truth is not a hashtag.")
As it stands right now, Weinstein is looking at a sentence of 18 to 24 years behind bars based on Monday’s guilty verdicts.
18 to 24 years for a one night encounter with one woman whose corroboration was the testimony of her daughter?
Harvey Weinstein's New York conviction is on appeal. This conviction will also be appealed. Legally, if he dies while an appeal is pending, his conviction in that case will be erased -- abated from its inception ("void ab initio").
That's what happened with Enron's Ken Lay who died while he was appealing his conviction. Here's the Judge's decision in that case:
In Durham v. United States, 91 S. Ct. 858, 860 (1971) (per curiam), the Supreme Court adopted the so-called "abatement rule," holding that "death pending direct review of a criminal conviction abates not only the appeal but also all proceedings had in the prosecution from its inception.
