Harvey Weinstein Seeks to Overturn Conviction Amid Jury Tensions

Fri Jan 09 2026 08:49:10 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

Harvey Weinstein returns to court to appeal last spring's split verdict, claiming juror misconduct influenced the trial outcome, raising questions about the integrity of the jury's deliberations.

Harvey Weinstein's defense team is arguing for the dismissal of his recent sex crime conviction, citing arguments that juror tensions significantly impacted the deliberation process. The case reflects the ongoing complexities of Weinstein's legal battles, which have been a focal point of the #MeToo movement. The judge's response to the defense's requests is awaited as tensions within jury deliberations come under scrutiny.

NEW YORK — Harvey Weinstein is back in court today seeking to have his latest sex crime conviction overturned, citing fears and rising tensions among jurors during deliberations last spring.

This latest development adds another complex layer to the former Hollywood executive's long-standing legal challenges that began with the onset of the #MeToo movement. Over the past seven years, Weinstein's case has seen trials across two states and has included both reversals and retrials, culminating in a contentious verdict last year in New York.

Weinstein, now 73, has firmly denied all allegations against him. Born from a growing list of sexual harassment and assault claims that emerged publicly in 2017, these cases have reignited societal conversations about sexual misconduct. At trial, Weinstein's defense claimed that the women consented to his advances, hoping to further their careers, and accused them of fabricating their stories for financial gain and publicity.

The split verdict delivered last June saw Weinstein being convicted of forcing oral sex upon one woman, while he was acquitted in another case of a similar charge. The jury was deadlocked on a separate charge regarding a rape accusation, which the prosecution has vowed to retry.

During a tumultuous jury deliberation period, several jurors expressed concerns regarding intense tensions and inappropriate discussions that could have impacted their decision-making. One juror highlighted that another was being 'shunned,' while the foreperson recounted being pressured and feeling unsafe, even suggesting that they had been threatened outside of court.

Despite these claims, the prosecution asserted that the jury's tensions were manageable and that the judge had acted appropriately. Weinstein's legal team argues that the issues surrounding jury behavior were serious enough to warrant a mistrial, maintaining that the court did not sufficiently investigate these claims before dismissing their requests.

As the judge weighs the defense's motion, the legal community is closely observing the outcomes, which could set the tone for future trials involving allegations of sexual misconduct. Whatever the judge decides, the impending responses will likely lead to further appeals and sustained public interest in the case, as Weinstein continues to face ongoing appeals in conjunction with multiple failed verdicts.