Jury has fate of #MeToo in hand

JURORS in Harvey Weinstein’s rape trial ended their first day of deliberations with plenty of questions and no verdict in the landmark #MeToo case that could put the fallen mogul in jail for life.

Before the jury retired to consider a verdict, Judge James Burke cautioned jurors that their decision is “not a referendum on the #MeToo movement”.

The jury is weighing charges that Weinstein raped then aspiring actor Jessica Mann in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013 and forcibly performed oral sex on another woman, TV and film production assistant Mimi Haleyi, in 2006.

The seven-man, fivewoman jury retired to consider their verdict about 11.30am on Tuesday in New York, after taking legal directions from the judge.

About 45 minutes later, the jury sent out their first note to the judge, asking for the legal definitions of some elements of the charges against the fallen producer – including “forcible compulsion” and “consent”.

Jurors also asked why actor Annabella Sciorra is just part of a “predatory sex-assault” charge, or attack pattern, and not a stand-alone alleged victim.

It is because the statute of limitations had already passed on the alleged crime against her.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice James Burke said he would read the jurors the definitions they requested. As for Sciorra’s case, he told them, “You must consider only the charges that are before you.”

The jury also asked to be shown the blueprints of his Soho apartment, and some Weinstein emails in which certain accusers’ names were highlighted.

The jurors appeared to also be asking for emails that Weinstein sent to Sam Anson, a private investigator, which included a “red flag list” of potential accusers to investigate. Mr Anson said he did not perform the investigation.

The prosecution and defence conferred with the judge about the request, and they agreed to provide the items to the jurors.

Before the jury was sent out, Weinstein lawyer Donna Rotunno was criticised by the prosecution over a Newsweek essay over the weekend, drawing complaints from a prosecutor who said she appeared to be trying to influence the jury.

Ms Rotunno wrote that Weinstein’s jurors “have an obligation to themselves and their country, to base their verdict solely on the facts, testimony and evidence presented to them in the courtroom”, not critical news stories, unflattering courtroom sketches or other outside influences.

Confronted about the essay in court, Ms Rotunno said she was writing “about the jury system as a whole” and was not speaking to the jury in Weinstein’s case.