Nine jurors were seated in the retrial of the disgraced film producer Harvey Weinstein at Manhattan criminal court on Wednesday, after defense attorneys asked the court to move their client from Rikers Island to a hospital in Manhattan, citing his deteriorating health condition. 

One man told the court, as he and 24 more potential jurors faced questions from prosecutors and defense attorneys during jury selection, that he had had “negative feelings” about the #MeToo movement, which was catalyzed by an October 2017 article in the New York Times that accused Mr. Weinstein of abusing his power in the film business to sexually harass women for decades. 

“I actually have negative feelings about the #MeToo movement,” said an male accounting consultant. He explained that his distrust stemmed from an incident he witnessed in high school, when a classmate was wrongly accused of sexual assault. 

How a juror feels about the #MeToo movement, and if he or she is able to set aside those personal views and judge the case impartially, is an essential issue in the retrial against Mr. Weinstein. 

The #MeToo movement, which encouraged women around the world to speak up against sexual abuse, largely started when the actress Ashley Judd spoke on the record to the Times about how Mr. Weinstein tried to coerce her into a sexual encounter, and then damaged her career after she refused him. Eventually, more than 80 women came forward in the press and accused Mr. Weinstein of sexual harassment, among them Gwyneth Paltrow, whose career soared when she starred in Mr. Weinstein’s films in the 1990s, as well as Cate Blanchett and Angelina Jolie. Other actresses, such as Asia Argento, accused Mr. Weinstein of sexual assault.

The Oscar-winning producer denied the allegations, saying the sexual encounters were all consensual, and there was no harassment of any kind. He was forced out of his production company and briefly checked into an Arizona rehab facility for sex addiction. And then, with the #MeToo movement in full force prosecutors did what had previously been thought to be impossible: they brought criminal charges against Mr. Weinstein. In 2020, a Manhattan jury convicted him of a first-degree criminal sexual act and of a third-degree rape charge. He was accused of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann in 2013 and forcibly performing an oral sex on TV and film production assistant, Miriam Haley, in 2006. The judge sentenced him to 23 years in prison.

Then, in 2022, a Los Angeles jury convicted Mr. Weinstein of three counts of sexual offenses and a judge there sentenced him to another 16 years.

Now his New York  case is back in the courtroom at the same Lower Manhattan courthouse where he was convicted five years ago, because last year, New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, overturned that conviction in a 4-3 ruling, finding that the trial judge wrongly admitted testimony against Mr. Weinstein based on vivid allegations from women that were not part of the case, including “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.

The guilty verdict was vacated and a new trial was ordered. The retrial will include one new allegation by an unnamed woman who says Mr. Weinstein forced her to perform oral sex on him in a New York hotel in 2006. 

In the intervening years since Mr. Weinstein’s initial conviction, the ardor of the #MeToo movement has subsided, with something of a public reappraisal taking place about whether the mantra of “believe all women” had gone too far. The federal government, under President Trump, is aggressively rolling back Biden-era diversity programs. Mr. Weinstein’s retrial is taking place in a different climate.

The accounting consultant, who expressed “negative feelings” about #MeToo movement was dismissed. Assistant District Attorney Nicole Blumberg and her team used one of their peremptory challenges to strike him from the jury pool. In return, the defense eliminated a woman who told the court she believed “not enough has been done” for women. When the judge asked her to elaborate, she said she believed many women were still too afraid to speak up after having been sexually harassed or assaulted, especially in the workplace.

One of the defense attorneys, Arthur Aidala, tried to ask the potential jurors if they had ever encountered anyone at work whom they felt had gotten a career jump because of having flirted with a superior. Prosecutors objected to that question and the judge sustained the objection. 

Ms. Blumberg asked if anyone felt that a woman who went to a man’s hotel room did not “deserve to be victimized” if she was assaulted there, because she had gone there by choice. None of the 25 prospective jurors raised their hands, all agreed a woman deserved to be victimized if assaulted. 

The judge dismissed one juror after he told the court that he was “a little biased” when asked if he would hold Mr. Weinstein to a different standard because he is famous. The man said he felt wealthy people did not face the same scrutiny in the court system as people without money. “I feel like if someone has the ability to buy their way out,” the man said, this person would face less challenges as opposed to a person of lesser means. “Most of us can’t wiggle our ways out of things.” 

Judge Faber vehemently disagreed, telling the potential juror that Mr. Weinstein was having his day in court and “there is no wiggling out of anything.” The judge insisted, “There is no predetermined outcome here… There is no special favor… He is standing trial like anyone else… You have to set aside what you think about this system… Are you gonna be able to treat him the same way?”  

“I can’t take that idea out of my head,” the man answered. 

The judge excused him, and also excused another man, who told the court that the first word that came to his mind, when the defense attorney asked him what he associated with Mr. Weinstein, was the word “pig.” The man apologized, saying “My apologies… I don’t think I can be impartial.” 

At the end of day the judge seated five women and four men. Both sides, the prosecution and the defense, each used seven of their 15 peremptory challenges. Three more jurors are needed to complete the box, and the judge said he wants to seat six alternates. Jury selection will continue on Thursday with a fresh pool of 80 Manhattanites.

Mr. Weinstein observed the jury selection, sitting in a wheelchair at the defense table. He leaned back at times, and seemed to scan the men and women in the box attentively. 

In the morning, his attorneys had filed an emergency petition, seeking to move their client from the notorious jail on Rikers Island, where he is currently incarcerated, to a Manhattan hospital for the course of the trial, citing his deteriorating health conditions. 

Defense attorney Imran Ansari asked that his client be “urgently transferred from the premises of the Rikers Island Correctional Facility… to the premises of Bellevue Hospital, in order to… receive necessary medical assistance during the pendency of the Criminal Trial, as to not do so could lead to exacerbation of and further serious medical conditions, and possibly death.”   

In his court filing, Mr. Ansari listed Mr. Weinstein’s illnesses, including chronic myeloid leukemia and extensive coronary artery disease. He wrote that his client recently suffered from “viral infections of the tongue and mouth,” which causes his tongue to swell up but was misdiagnosed as a bacterial infection.

“Moreover, Weinstein’s health has had a dramatic decline in the past months, as heavily reported in the media. Last year, he was hospitalized and tested positive for Covid-19 and double pneumonia. Recently, he also underwent a life-threatening emergency pericardiocentesis surgery to alleviate a significant amount of fluid in his lungs and heart. Moreover, he has suffered crashes and destabilization of his white blood cell counts, additional complications affecting his thyroid conditions, and spent several months without any cancer medication.” Mr. Ansari argued. 

The spokesperson for Mr. Weinstein, Juda Engelmayer, told the Sun in an email on Wednesday that “This isn’t justice—it’s cruelty.” 

“It is outrageous and inexcusable that Harvey Weinstein—who is battling cancer, diabetes, and a host of other serious medical conditions—is being subjected to such neglect and mistreatment under the care of New York City. His medications are routinely delayed or administered improperly, he has gained an alarming amount of fluid weight due to mismanagement of his health, and he’s left freezing in his cell without even clean clothes. This is not incarceration—it’s deliberate indifference,” Mr. Engelmayer wrote. He added, “We have raised these issues over and over again with the city’s legal representatives, and nothing changes… The system is failing him, and we will not stay silent while it does.” 

The defense team took legal action against New York City last November, seeking $5 million in damages for the alleged negligent medical treatment on Rikers Island.  

Judge Faber has not ruled on the emergency filings yet. However, he expects jury selection to be completed on Thursday, and the attorneys to hold opening statements next week.