By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A mistrial was declared in Harvey Weinstein’s third New York sex crimes case after the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the charge of rape in the third degree. The panel deliberated for approximately nine hours over three days before informing the judge of their deadlock, which stemmed from questions regarding the credibility of accuser Jessica Mann. This outcome follows a previous mistrial on similar charges and comes as Weinstein continues to serve time for other sex crimes convictions. Prosecutors stated they would consult with Mann on their next steps, while Weinstein’s defense expressed gratitude for the jury’s attention to the evidence.
Read the original article here
The recent mistrial declared in Harvey Weinstein’s third Manhattan sex crimes trial, due to a deadlocked jury, has understandably ignited a firestorm of commentary and frustration. It’s a situation that leaves many asking the unsettling question: is he going to walk free? The very notion of extending trials indefinitely, a thought expressed by some, highlights a deep-seated weariness with the legal process when it feels drawn out and seemingly without end, leading to the somber conclusion for some that “justice is dead.”
The complexities of the charges themselves, the subtle distinctions between actions and outright rape, coupled with the specter of potential pardons, even from figures associated with controversial pasts, contribute to a pervasive sense of disbelief. The idea that someone might be accused of “forcibly” doing things but not be considered a rapist, marked by the sarcasm of “/s,” underscores a perceived loophole or a frustrating semantic debate that overshadows the alleged harm.
It’s difficult to fathom how someone with Weinstein’s history, including allegations of serious offenses with individuals like Jeffrey Epstein, could find themselves facing another mistrial. This outcome prompts an existential questioning of the state of affairs, a bewildered “What the fuck is this country anymore?” that resonates with many who believe the scales of justice should be unequivocally tipped against such accusations.
Speculation about the jury’s deliberations often centers on the possibility of a near-unanimous vote for conviction, perhaps an 11-1 split. The lingering question then becomes, what prevented a full consensus? The idea of a single juror, perhaps swayed by a misguided notion that Weinstein “had too much to lose” to commit such crimes, could be the sole obstacle. This raises a significant concern about the repeated opportunities for such a scenario to unfold, prompting the exasperated query, “How many do overs does the fucking creep get?” The sheer number of trials and potential retrials becomes almost impossible to track, fueling suspicions of more nefarious influences at play.
The possibility of jury tampering or outright bribery is a recurring theme in the discussions. The sentiment that “The jury is being paid off it seems” and the lament that “the country where money lets you do what ever you want.. Land of the Free indeed” point to a profound distrust in the fairness of a system perceived to be corrupted by wealth and influence. When a jury deadlocks in a case with what appears to be a significant amount of testimony against the accused, it can feel particularly baffling. “Deadlocked? Wow. That’s crazy. Seems like in this case had enough people speaking against him that it was pretty much open and shut.”
The visual perception of the accused also fuels some of the commentary, with comparisons to “a troll that lives under a bridge” and a cynical observation about political affiliations, suggesting “Republicans love sex offenders.” The sheer exhaustion with the legal maneuvering leads to visceral reactions, with pleas for swift and decisive action, such as “Appeal, appeal, appeal, just put this fucker’s ass in an electric chair already.”
The sheer disheartening nature of the outcome leads to a loss of faith. “I have no faith in humanity at this point that it wouldn’t surprise me if it 11-1 jury but the 1 standing alone is the only 1 say guilty and the rest are saying innocent.” This bleak outlook is further cemented by comparisons to outlandish beliefs, suggesting that if “flat earthers exist,” then such an improbable jury outcome is not entirely surprising.
On a more sardonic note, some express a faux belief in Weinstein’s innocence, describing him as “Truly a paragon of a good member of society” and sarcastically suggesting a juror was swayed by Weinstein’s statement to the point of securing “TO A BIGGER HOUSE.” However, beneath the cynicism lies a crucial factual point: Weinstein already has other convictions that are not in doubt, and he is expected to remain imprisoned regardless of the outcome of this specific trial. The confusion surrounding California’s insistence on a trial when he was already serving a lengthy New York sentence is clarified by the understanding that he will likely spend the remainder of his life incarcerated due to prior convictions.
The use of a walker for sympathy, which some perceive as a calculated move, might have foreshadowed the prolonged legal battles and the potential for him to “be dead before it’s all settled.” There’s a grim reassurance for some in knowing that his final years have been spent facing consequences, however protracted. The DA’s stated readiness to “do it again and again” might be a testament to their resolve, but it raises practical concerns about taxpayer money and the strain on judicial resources.
A significant concern is the impact on victims, who are forced to “come up to the witness stand and revisit their trauma and have it cross-examined over and over.” This reiterative ordeal is not only emotionally taxing but also consumes valuable court time, potentially delaying other important cases. The ideal scenario, therefore, involves not endless retrials but “accuracy and efficiency.”
The question of whether there’s a legal limit to the number of mistrials is raised, with the concern that a prolonged deadlock could be weaponized against political opponents. The focus should ideally be on ensuring that justice is served efficiently and without undue repetition, rather than perpetuating a cycle that benefits those who can afford endless legal battles. The reality of the situation, unfortunately, often seems to be dictated by one’s “tax bracket,” reinforcing the belief that “Rule number one of life, there is no justice, there never was.”
It’s important to clarify that Weinstein’s convictions in California were not in federal court, and the discussion about presidential pardons, while reflecting broader political anxieties, is not directly applicable to the current situation. The current trial, and others like it, are primarily focused on allegations of sexual assault and intimidation against adult women, though the horrifying nature of crimes against minors is acknowledged and distinct. The core of the disgust directed at Weinstein, even setting aside any potential offenses against underage individuals, stems from his characterization as a “horrifying monster of an individual, already a pervert and a sex pest and a rapist.”
The experience of serving on a jury can be eye-opening, as one juror described, highlighting instances where fellow jurors seemed unable to follow instructions or engage in thorough deliberation. The “casual disregard for the sanctity of the process” observed by some in jury duty is disheartening. In such situations, the determination of just one juror can derail the entire process, leading to scenarios that feel absurdly prolonged, especially when the deliberations are relatively short, as in this case, only nine hours over three days. The prospect of Weinstein being released on bail pending a retrial, should his California convictions be overturned, is a deeply unsettling thought for many. Ultimately, the recurring mistrials and the perception of a system that allows for endless legal battles, especially for those with financial resources, fuels a profound sense of disillusionment and a questioning of the very meaning of justice.