Harvey Weinstein’s sex assault trial delayed until September

NEW YORK >> Harvey Weinstein’s sexual assault trial has been postponed until September, a judge said Friday after a closed-door hearing that focused on the prosecution’s bid to have jurors hear from many women who say the movie mogul violated them.

Weinstein’s trial had been scheduled to begin June 3, but both the prosecution and the defense indicated they would need more time to sort through potential witnesses and evidence issues. It is now set for Sept. 9.

The prosecution and defense asked that the hearing that preceded the delay announcement be held behind closed doors because it focuses on sensitive matters, such as the names of accusers.

Judge James Burke in Manhattan said closing the courtroom to the news media and public was “the only means available to avoid the tainting of the jury pool.” He also rejected the news organizations’ request to unseal documents related to the hearing.

The hearing, Burke said, dealt with material that “is prejudicial to the defendant and is highly inflammatory.” He said news coverage would serve no other purpose than to stir negative public sentiment toward Weinstein.

Burke also denied the media organizations’ request to delay the hearing so they would have time to appeal. An appellate judge denied a request by the media outlets to immediately halt the proceeding.

Burke issued his ruling after prosecutors said it was necessary to close the courtroom, both to protect Weinstein’s right to a fair trial and to shield the identities of accusers whose names and allegations were expected to come up during the hearing.

“We believe it is prudent” to close the court, Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Joan IlluzziOrbon said.

Weinstein lawyer Marianne Bertuna argued that news coverage could influence potential jurors and that “the court cannot be complicit with the press in denying the defendant’s right to a fair trial.”

Lawyers for the news organizations, including The Associated Press, said the prosecution and defense arguments didn’t meet the high legal standard for banning the media and the public.

Weinstein’s case is “a matter of immense and legitimate public interest,” and the allegations against him are already widely known, said Robert Balin, a lawyer for the news organizations.

The sides asking for the courtroom to be closed were suggesting that “somehow it is improper for the press and the public to be sitting here and report news in real time,” even though that right is guaranteed by the Constitution, Balin argued.

Balin argued that the allegations against Weinstein from more than 80 women have already been widely reported and that many of them, such as actresses Mira Sorvino and Ashley Judd, have agreed to be identified publicly. But not all have, IlluzziOrbon said.