The movie producer Harvey Weinstein was found guilty on one count of criminal sexual act as it relates to the former production assistant Miriam Haley. 

Mr. Weinstein was found not guilty on one count of the criminal sexual act as it related to the former Polish model Kaja Sokola. 

The jury did not reach a verdict in the third-degree rape charge as it relates to the former aspiring actress, Jessica Mann. 

The presiding judge, Curtis Farber, sent the jury home on Wednesday at 2 pm, and asked them to return on Thursday and continue deliberating the charge brought by Ms. Mann.  

“Guilty,” the foreperson said, when he was asked if the jury had reached a verdict as it related to the first count of the three count indictment brought against Mr. Weinstein. 

“Not guilty,” he said, when asked about the verdict related to Ms. Sokola.

Jury deliberations, which started last Thursday, and were on their fifth day, were heated and tempestuous.

The charge brought by Ms. Mann, it appeared, had caused disputes among the jurors on Wednesday, escalating to the point that the defendant, Mr. Weinstein felt the urge to address the court and ask the judge for a mistrial. 

“Have you ever heard of anything in your thirty years of experience?” Mr. Weinstein asked the judge. “Jurors coming into the courtroom and complaining about their safety?” 

“It’s not fair. It’s not fair,” Mr. Weinstein said. “Four times we’ve heard complaints. This is over.” 

The foreperson, who had previously complained about “playground” nastiness on Monday, expressed that he did not want to return to the deliberation room on Wednesday. 

In the morning, court reporters had read back to the jury the testimony given by Ms. Mann about her rape allegation which, she claimed, occurred in March 2013 at a hotel in Manhattan. 

Then after a few hours of deliberations, the jury asked to hear again the law regarding to rape, which the judge read to them. As the jurors were leaving the courtroom, heading back to the deliberation room, the foreperson stayed behind, shaking his head, indicating that he did not want to join his fellow jurors again.

The foreperson then sent a note asking to speak to the judge about a “situation” he found troubling. He expressed in the open court that he wished to hold this conversation in private. The judge then spoke to the foreperson and the attorneys in his chambers.  

When the attorneys and the judge returned to the courtroom, the lead defense attorney, Arthur Aidala, asked for a mistrial stating that there was a “crime being committed in the jury room.” 

The foreperson had told the attorneys and the judge that he was not willing “to change his position,” without indicating what position he held, and that another juror had threatened him, saying “I’ll meet you outside one day. You don’t know me.”  He also said there was “yelling and screaming” going on in the jury room.  

The defense attorney was outraged. “Any verdict right now is absolutely improper.” He said and moved for a mistrial.  

“He (the juror) is complaining to a Supreme Court judge, ‘help me, I don’t wanna go back there.’ I think he said, ‘I am protecting other people as well.’ He is asking you to protect him.” Mr. Aidala fumed.  

An assistant district attorney, Matthew Colangelo, speaking on behalf of the Manhattan district attorney’s office that brought the charges, opposed the mistrial motion and argued that the defense was mischaracterizing the juror.

“He was stubborn,” Mr. Colangelo said. “He said he made up his mind and he is not gonna change it and people were pressuring him to change it.” 

The prosecutor asked the judge to remind the jury to be civil with each other, and cited various other cases, where jurors had fought and argued.  

But the defense attorney said the juror should be told to call 911. Then Mr. Aidala read the legal definition of menacing in the third-degree, which includes “shouting threats” at someone or “using a threatening gesture.” 

That’s when the defendant, Mr. Weinstein asked to address the court. The judge granted the request. 

“This is the forth time in a week,” Mr. Weinstein said, referring to the number of times that jurors had expressed problems in the deliberation room. Mr. Weinstein said the jurors had raised concerns of “intimation” and “threats” and he felt that, “this is not right for me… The person, who is on trial here, this is my life that’s on the line… There is obviously a tremendous amount of animosity… There is a fairness issue.” 

As the Sun reported, the turmoil in the deliberation room had been going on since Friday. 

One juror told the court that there was “playground stuff” going on, and that he had overheard two jurors speak badly about another juror in the elevator. He also said that he had overheard jurors speaking about the case outside of the courthouse. Someone else complained that jurors were discussing past allegations instead of focusing on the present charges.  

The movie producer told the judge that he had been in “situations like this” in his business before, situations, he said, “where I wanted to hold on for dear life.” He was trying to tell the judge, who was trying to help the jurors navigate the heated deliberations, that it was time to call for a mistrial. 

“This is unfair,” Mr. Weinstein said, “I know judges on a personal level. I know attorneys on a personal level…” he went on to say that he had never heard of any disputes among jurors before.

But Judge Farber disagreed. He told the defendant that he had “over 30 years of experience” of being an attorney before he became a judge, and that it was normal that jurors fight during deliberations. 

“I am not gonna allow any injustice to happen to you,” the judge said, “I am very much guarding your rights to have a fair trial.”

The judge then decided to ask the jury if they had reached any verdict in the three count indictment, on any of the three charges. A note came back from the room, saying they had indeed unanimously agreed on two counts. 

The defense attorney insisted that the judge should “dig deeper” and ask “follow up questions” as to who was threatening the foreperson and if there were other people involved, and again, stated that he was moving for a mistrial. 

The judge denied the mistrial motion and called the jury back into the room, where the jurors declared the verdicts.

The judge released them for the day and asked them to come back to court tomorrow and deliberate on the rape charge brought by Ms. Mann.  

Over the course of the last five days, the twelve Manhattanites asked for readbacks of the testimony given by all three accusers, testimony given by the expert, a clinical psychologist, who spoke about, why victims of sexual assault often go back to their predetators. They asked for medical records and email exchanges, and finally the legal definition of rape in the third-degree. 

The Oscar-winning film producer, Mr. Weinstein, 73, known for classic films like “Pulp Fiction” and “The English Patient,” had been charged with three sexual offenses: two felony sex crimes and one third-degree rape. 

The first charge, a criminal sexual act, which carries a maximum of 25 years in prison, related to a former production assistant, Miriam Haley, who accused him of forcibly performing oral sex on her in his New York apartment in 2006. A former Polish model, Kaja Sokola, also accused him of the same crime in the same year, saying he performed oral sex on her in a hotel room in Manhattan in 2006.     

The third-degree rape charge, which carries a maximum sentence of four years, stemmed from an accusation by a formerly aspiring actress, Jessica Mann, who said Mr. Weinstein raped her in a hotel room in Manhattan in 2013.  

Mr. Weinstein pleaded not guilty to all three charges. 

The producer was previously convicted of two of these crimes. In 2020, he was found guilty for the charges brought by Ms. Mann and by Ms. Haley. (The charge by Ms. Sokola was newly added in the retrial and not part of the previous trial.)  Mr. Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in prison. 

Last year, the movie mogul got a second chance to fight the accusations in the same Manhattan courthouse after New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, vacated his conviction in a 4-3 ruling. 

The higher court found that the trial judge had wrongly allowed damaging testimony by women whose allegations were not part of the case and thus prejudiced the jury. 

One of these so called “Molineux witnesses” was the “Sopranos” star, Annabella Sciorra, who testified that Mr. Weinstein barged into her apartment and raped her, then ruined her career after she refused his further advances. Some legal experts believed that Ms. Sciorra’s gripping testimony clinched the guilty-verdict.     

Mr. Weinstein’s conviction was considered a historic win for the #MeToo Movenmemt, which was galvanized in 2017 after the actress Ashley Judd spoke on the record to the New York Times about how Mr. Weinstein allegedly tried to coerce her into a sexual encounter, and then damaged her career after she refused him. 

Ultimately more than 80 women came forward and accused Mr. Weinstein of sexual harassment, including the Oscar winners Gwyneth Paltrow, whose career soared when she starred in Mr. Weinstein’s films in the 1990s, Cate Blanchett, and Angelina Jolie. Other actresses, such as the Italian screen goddess Asia Argento, who briefly dated Mr. Weinstein, accused him of sexual assault.

The film producer denied the allegations, saying the sexual encounters were all consensual, and there was no harassment and no assault of any kind. After the Times piece was published, he was forced out of his production company and briefly checked into a pricey Arizona rehab facility, Gentle Path, for sex addiction, leaving early. 

After the higher court vacated his conviction in 2024, Mr.Weinstein, who had been incarcerated at a medium security prison in upstate New York, was brought to the notorious jail on Rikers Island in New York City. He was ordered to remain behind bars because he was also found guilty of sexual offenses by a jury in Los Angeles in 2022, and sentenced to another 16 years in prison there. 

While on Rikers, his health – already on the downslope – began to deteriorate dramatically. He’d already undergone treatment for bone marrow cancer, and had an emergency heart surgery in 2024. He also suffers from diabetes and other ailments. Shortly before his retrial began, he experienced so-called burning mouth syndrome, which caused him to have a badly swollen tongue, leading to him being hospitalized at Bellevue.    

During jury selection, his attorneys filed an emergency relief motion, asking that their client be permitted to stay at Bellevue for the duration of his retrial. The motion was granted and Mr. Weinstein stayed at the Manhattan hospital during the trial. 

A different judge, Curtis Faber, presided over the retrial, which began with jury selection on April 15, and heard emotional testimony from all three alleged victims, Ms. Haley, Ms. Sokolda and Ms. Mann. 

Every one of those witnesses broke down into tears on the witness stand as they detailed the alleged assaults. After Ms. Mann’s cross-examination ended, and she was heading out of the courtroom, she made a gesture to Mr. Weinstein. She pointed one finger at her eye, and then pointed at him, as if she were saying to him, “I see you.” Mr. Weinstein reacted by making a strange gurgling sound, causing the court officers, who were constantly guarding him, to lean over the defendant and see if he was suffering a medical emergency. From the courtroom pews it appeared to be somewhat of a commotion but Mr. Weinstein’s press spokesman Juda Engelmayer later told the Sun, “What happened was he made a weird sound. That was all.” 

Mr. Engelmayer also explained to the Sun why the defendant chose not to testify at his retrial.

“He’s not hiding… He wanted to testify, and we respect that. But the courtroom isn’t just about truth—it’s also strategy. Once he’s on the stand, the prosecution can range far beyond the current charges, using unrelated or unclear details to try to undermine his credibility. This isn’t about evasion; it’s about navigating a legal process that often resembles chess more than it does a straightforward search for truth,” Mr. Engelmayer said last week. 

This week, as the jury deliberated, Mr. Engelmayer told the Sun that he felt, “regardless of the outcome” that this retrial had been much fairer than the first trial in 2020. 

“It’s a much fairer process than last time.” Mr. Engelmayer told the Sun on Monday afternoon. “The judge has been completely fair to us. The prosecution, as much as they tried, was only allowed limited evidence by the judge in the limited justice of this case for the most part, and it was helpful.” 

After the higher court’s ruling, Judge Faber had been very careful about allowing any testimony that was not directly related to the charges. 

He allowed the new alleged victim, Kaja Sokola, to tell the jury about an incident, which is not part of the charged crime, because it gave relevant background information as to her character.  

According to Ms. Sokola, she first met Mr. Weinstein in 2002, when she was just 16 years old and had come to New York to spend the summer modeling, after she won a modeling competition in Poland. She came by herself, unaccompanied by her parents. She met, she said, Mr. Weinstein one evening at an event, and told him that her dream was to become an actress. He offered to have lunch with her and discuss her acting ambitions, but instead of taking her to lunch, the former model testified, he took her to an apartment and forced his hands between her legs, while he masterbated in front of her. 

The defense has denied the shocking allegation against a minor, arguing that Ms. Sokola remembered the incident to have taken place somewhere in Soho, a posh neighborhood in Downtown Manhattan, while Mr. Weinstein was actually living on Central Park West, a prestigious street far north of Soho on the Upper West Side, in 2002. 

Regardless of the truth of the matter, the jury was instructed numerous times, after the testimony was given, when they were charged with the case, and again during deliberations to disregard this alleged encounter as factual evidence. 

“They couldn’t count that as evidence or anything like that just because she yelled it out, doesn’t make it true. It doesn’t make it part of this trial. The judge said that this should be regarded as character (testimony), as character to her, as to her state of mind, not Harvey’s character,” Mr. Engelmayer said. 

Ms. Sokola’s testimony about her accusation from 2006, which was charged as a crime, was tainted by her older sister, Eva Sokola, a renowned cardiologist, who also testified during the trial and in a strange act of betrayal gave her younger sibling’s diary to the defense. 

The alleged victim had kept a diary in Poland in 2015 while she was undergoing a program to treat her alcoholism. In that diary, Ms. Sokola had made a list of men who had somehow abused her. Mr. Weinstein, it turned out, was not on that list. But his name appeared in the diary and next to it, Ms. Sokola had written, “broken dreams.”  

“The diary has a list and details of other men who she claims did bad things. Harvey was just someone who disappointed her… She claims she wrote that in her private diary because she was afraid that powerful people who might read her private diary might see it and get mad at her for talking about Harvey. That’s odd for a private diary,” Mr. Engelmayer told the Sun on Monday. 

The defense tried to convince the jury that the diary showed that Mr. Weinstein never “abused” Ms. Sokola, while the prosecution argued that the fact that her sister gave the diary to defense proved the complicated relationship between Ms. Sokola and her family, who did not approve of her Hollywood dreams. Because the relationship was so difficult, prosecutors argued, Ms. Sokola did not trust her sister and did not share the alleged assault with her, even though her sister was in the hotel lobby, waiting, while the alleged assault occurred upstairs in a hotel room. 

Ms. Sokola, her sister and Mr. Weinstein had had lunch together. After the lunch, the defendant allegedly offered to show Ms. Sokola movie scripts upstairs in his room. While the sister waited, Ms. Sokola followed Mr. Weinstein to the room, where, she claimed, he forced oral sex on her. When they returned to the lobby, her sister testified, she appeared to be fine, not distraught or disheveled in any way. But prosecutors argued that she wanted to hide the embarrassing and traumatic experience from her successful sister.      

Like Ms. Sokola, another accuser, Ms. Haley, also claimed that Mr. Weinstein forced oral sex on her. 

Mr. Engelmayer explained to the Sun that the judge had permitted the infamous New York Times article from 2017 into evidence, “so that the jury could see what inspired Ms. Haley to come forward, not that any of those stories were true.”