According to the disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein’s legal team, two jurors who cast votes for his conviction have come forward claiming they were pressured by fellow jurors and now regret their votes.
In sworn statements filed in court on Tuesday, the jurors assert they faced intimidation and threats from other members during the tumultuous deliberations that led to Weinstein being found guilty on one of three counts in June.
One unidentified juror expressed in their statement, “I regret my vote. I strongly believe, without the coercive atmosphere created by other jurors, the jury would have been deadlocked on the charge against Miriam Haley.”
Weinstein, aged 73, was found guilty of criminal sexual conduct for assaulting Miriam Haley, a production assistant and producer, in 2006.
He was found not guilty on another charge involving former model and psychotherapist Kaja Sokola. A mistrial was proclaimed for the most serious rape allegation involving Jessica Mann, another former actress.
“Had I been able to cast my vote in secret, I would have chosen not guilty on all three charges,” one juror’s affidavit stated, as reported by Bloomberg here.
The juror recounted instances where colleagues yelled, “We need to get rid of you.”
When the jury foreperson requested civility, another juror confronted him aggressively, claiming, “You don’t know me. I’ll deal with you later,” according to the statement.
“Upon returning home, I informed two family members to check on me if they didn’t hear from me, as I felt something was amiss with the jury’s deliberation process,” one juror mentioned.
“I was so worried about potential backlash and my own safety that I ended up voting with the majority.”
One affidavit claimed that one juror accused another of receiving bribes from Weinstein, an accusation that “shifted the deliberation from a 6-6 split to an abrupt unanimous verdict,” per the statement.
During the June trial, jury deliberations were characterized by “playground drama” which spiraled out of control, with the jury foreperson reporting bullying and threats.
“Jury deliberations can become quite heated, and I understand this particular case was notably intense. It’s regrettable,” Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber commented before declaring a mistrial on the rape charge.
Following the trial, two jurors contradicted the foreperson’s statements, according to the Associated Press.
Juror No. 10 gave their opinion to The Post about the chaotic jury dynamics.
“Everything he did was underhanded,” Chantan Holmes-Clayborn stated outside the Manhattan Supreme Court after the proceedings closed.
Weinstein, who was convicted of sexual assault at his second trial, previously had a verdict overturned on appeal. He has yet to receive a sentence for the June conviction.
A mistrial was declared on the rape charge, which the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has indicated it plans to retry.
Weinstein’s attorneys are working to overturn his conviction for first-degree criminal sex act and are also appealing a distinct case in California.
With Post wires
