Weinstein Convicted of Rape in Landmark #MeToo Case

sexual abuse. I hope that survivors will see that in this justice system, prosecutors, judges and juries will believe them even when the facts are not simple, and even when the dynamics of the relationships between the survivors and the abuser are complicated. Joining me is Corey Stern, a partner at Levi Koonigsberg. So much attention has been placed on this case that started the meat too movement? What does the verdict signify beyond the case? I think it signifies

a couple of things. One um that definitely add credibility and credence to victims voices. You know, five years ago, ten years ago, three years ago. I'm not sure that a prosecution would have even occurred on these charges that happened so long ago, and to I'm not sure a jury would have convicted on any of the charges. But now it's it's clear that juries prosecutors the country generally is not going to stand for types of crimes, these types of action. You know, it's it shows how much

prosecutors have changed their thinking. And number two, I think it's it's a testament to how much society has changed. We right now are talking about a verdict that occurred by a man against a number of women. But it wouldn't be surprising if the next trial, if the next chapter included male on men elk crimes or you know, whereas before some people wouldn't have even given those types of those types of cases, those types of allegations, any credence.

Just society has changed a lot for the better. So people's voices are being heard, and you know, this jury has spoken to that. In this case because of New York law, other women were allowed to testify about a pattern, some relating to alleged attacks a quarter century ago. Do you think in another case where it's just one victim and one defendant, it would be a similar outcome. I do.

And in fact, in this case, those bolstering witnesses and the charges that they were being brought to provide evidence to support those were the charges that he was found not guilty of. And so the jury obviously split its verdict in some way and didn't find them guilty on every charge. But um, I don't think that it was that evidence that was what compelled this jury to find

him guilty. I think they took the testimony of the actual victims in the case, um, and they found sufficient evidence from those statements alone, not from anybody else, but from those statements alone, to convictims. So I think absolutely, going forward, even without the bolstering type evidence, victims will have their day and perpetrators like Mr Weinstein will possibly and likely be found guilty. The jury hasn't spoken, so no one knows what the jury was thinking with that

split verdict. But explain what the logical reasoning would say

about it. Yeah, I mean, in my experience trying cases, you know, sometimes you have jurors, ten jurs eight jurors, twelve jurors, and they don't agree on everything, and you have people that dig in on their various positions and what ultimately becomes the verdict is oftentimes a compromise amongst the jurors, and it strikes me in this case that there were likely some jurors that felt he had probably done some things that were bad, but whether that rose

to the level of a criminal act, you know, there may have been some some doubt about that. And then you likely had others who thought that he was guilty of everything and one of the worst people ever to walk the face of the earth. And because of the amount of time that went by in deliberations, because last week there was a note to the judge that said, if we're unanimous on one or two charges but not unanimous on the others, can we be hung on the others?

It strikes me that this jury took its role seriously as a group and that there was likely some compromise involved in terms of what they found him guilty for and what they exonerated him on. They didn't take very long after getting what's called the dynamite charge by the judge, where the judge said, go back and try to come to an agreement, So they didn't take very long to come to an agreement after that, whereas on Friday they

said that they were split. Yeah, I mean you also had you know, it was a weekend, and so had on Wednesday they've been at the exact same place and come to the judge and said, hey, we're split and we can't come to a verdict on these charges. I'm not sure that there would have been the same result the next Thursday, you know, twenty four hours later or less, where they did reach a verdict. I think you had people that had time to really think, to ponder the evidence.

And it's not that they were necessarily talking to anybody about it or reading about it. It's just, you know, you're dealing with this trial for such a long time. You're sitting through all the evidence, and then you get that that charge by the judge, which is like a hammer coming down on you. And you get to spend your weekend away at home with your family, and and you have some time away from the jury itself, away

from the deliberations, and you really get to think. And I was not surprised that they actually came to a verdict as early as they were able to. I think that when you are able to take a few steps away from that room, from that group, from those deliberations, from your position, from everyone's position, and you ask yourself, you know, you know, what the heck am I doing here? And what do I really think? Sometimes it's easier to do with a little bit of time away, and so

I think the timing of it makes sense. I think the verdict makes sense, and I'm not at all surprised. I've been talking to Corey Stern, a partner at Levi Koenigsberg, about the verdict today against Harvey Weinstein. Cross examinations in this case were really tough, and d A Cyrus Vans seemed to suggest that might change in the future. Do you think that cross examinations in the future will really be that much different, because you know, they still have

a job to do. I don't think so. I mean I watched or listen to some of the cross examinations in this case, and you know, I thought that the defense lawyers were extremely skillful. One of the worst things for Harvey Weinstein in in trying to potentially appeal this verdict is how good of a job as lawyers did. Um. You know, it's really difficult to challenge a verdict when the jury clearly is able to find you not guilty of at least some of the things you're being charged with.

I think there's a way in which across examination can take place that is respectful or as respectful as possible under the circumstances. I also think that lawyers have their own personal styles, and you have some lawyers that are just genuinely aggressive, and they're aggressive whether it's across examination, they're aggressive, regardless of whether it's an expert witness. They're

just aggressive by nature. And then you have other lawyers who, either based on the region that they practice or sort of the way they were raised as a lawyer, you know, they're less aggressive and they're more conversational or humble, or they don't come across in the same aggressive way. So I don't necessarily think it's a strategy to destroy women on cross examination who claims of the victims. And now

that's going to change. I think that, if anything, maybe people who are more aggressive will find a way to dial it down a bit. But I don't think you're going to stop seeing pretty intense cross examinations when someone's liberty is on the line, When someone's freedom is on the line, is there one thing or two that you can point to that the prosecution did, either strategy wise

or in the courtroom that led to this verdict. I think that they very much allowed the victims to tell their story, and they didn't try and convince or to coax the victims into only telling part of the story so as to not get to the parts that were not good for them. So, for instance, you know, you have a victim who claims to have been assaulted or raped by Mr Weinstein and then weeks later or even less is with him again, and even in one instance

had sex with him again consensually. It would be much easier to try and keep that information out the post assault, post rape, post bad conduct moment, because is it's not good for your case. It's not good for a jury to hear a I was raped, but be a few weeks later, a few days later, I decided to have

sex with him. So I think that the prosecution owned all of the facts, not just the facts that were good for its case, and I think that by doing so, they were able to take some of the fire from what the defendants could have done on cross examination had they not owned it on the front end. So, for instance, it's always easier if if you put out there the bad facts before your adversary in the courtroom gets too

and I think they did that really well. Here. As far as appeal, the defense attorney said, definitely, they're going to appeal this. Are there any grounds that stand out to you for appeal here? I mean, the one that the one that is most most likely to have any merit um, although I don't think it will work, is the fact that the jury was not sequestered, and it you know, it was a pretty highly publicized trial. Throughout

the trial. I mean, I spoke about the trial on various media's and you know, there are hundreds of lawyers that were asked to comment um, at least locally in New York. It was on the news virtually every day.

The defense lawyer in the case wrote an article for I think the you know, for for a national magazine on the eve of the verdict about, you know, her client deserving a fair a fair shot from the jury and so, you know, if if it had been me as the judge, and again I'm not being critical of anybody, but just to answer your question, I mean, I think

that sequestering the jury may have made some sense. And if I were the defense in the case, I would argue that there's just no way living in the city wherever every juror must live in order to qualify to be a jurist for this trial, that there's no way living in the city they could not have been influenced or at least been exposed to media coverage of the

case throughout the pendency of the trial. Once he faces a five to twenty five years sentence for the criminals actual act and as long as four years on a third degree rape count, any way of telling how the judge will handle this well, I mean, obviously it's a maximum of about twenty nine years thirty years if it's to run um consecutively. Uh, if a judge were to run the sentence concurrently, it could be up to twenty five years. You know, Mr Weinstein doesn't have any real

criminal record. Um, if you were to if you were to take his name out of it, and if you were to take all the publicity associated with the case out of it, and you would have just sort of mark it up as as as defendant X, and you know, what would this person be looking at in terms of a sentence. My best guess is it won't be the maximum, but it also won't be too light, somewhere between ten to twelve maybe ten to fifteen years to run concurrently

would be my guests. But again, you know, the judge might find that there are some extraneous circumstance, as the judge might have been moved in a way by some of the support testimony from other victims whose cases could not be brought because of the statute of limitations. So it's possible that it's that it's it's the maximum. But my guess is it's not going to be. The judge remanded Harvey Weinstein it's and turned down the defense request.

Is that any indication of how he might rule, whether it's going to be, you know, tough or more lenient. I don't think so. I mean, obviously, if if it's indicative of anything, it would be tougher rather than more lenient. That's just, you know, sort of obvious. But you know, this man was just convicted of two serious felonies and

he's facing up to twenty nine years in jail. He was permitted to be out on bond during the pendency of his trial, but the trial is now over and he's been convicted, and so I don't think that it's as strong there's any strong argument for him to be permitted to stay out of jail now that he's been convicted, And I would chalk that more up to that's kind

of the right thing to do under the circumstances. Is irrespective of who the defendant is, irrespective of how he may have never been in trouble before, irrespective of how much money he has or how much bond he's able to put up. Um. I wouldn't read too much into that. I think that, if anything, it's just the right thing

to do. If someone was going to read, you know, sort of the tea leaves on it, obviously to judge would be seen as being more strict and and and more likely to to you know, to to sentence him to a more severe sentence. But I just see it as what I would normally expect in a case where someone's been convicted of two crimes that involve you know, DV and sexual act. Thanks Corey. That's Corey Stern, a

partner at Levi Konigsberg. Remember you can listen to the latest legal topics in the news anytime on our Bloomberg Law podcast. Just go to iTunes, SoundCloud or Bloomberg dot Com, slash podcast, slash Law. I'm John Russo and this is Bloomberg Ye