The sentence of 23 years in prison imposed on film producer Harvey Weinstein by Justice James A. Burke of the New York State Supreme Court is a savage conclusion to a travesty of a legal process. In a case in which a “mountain of doubt,” in the words of one journalist, was raised by Weinstein’s defense team, Burke handed out nearly the maximum possible sentence. Weinstein was found guilty February 24 on charges of a criminal sexual act in the first degree and rape in the third degree.
At an impromptu press conference following the sentencing hearing, defense attorney Donna Rotunno correctly pointed to the “obscene” character of the sentence, to the “total unfairness” of the trial and noted that many convicted murderers would leave prison sooner than her client.
A partial guilty verdict was achieved through subjecting the jury pool to a torrent of media filth and creating an intensely hostile climate in the courtroom, aided and abetted by a trial judge who manipulated the proceedings in such a manner as to prejudice the jury and ensure Weinstein’s conviction. No searching and objective consideration of the evidence presented in the case could have resulted in a guilty verdict.
The collective shriek of joy at the 67-year-old film producer’s destruction arising from the media, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, the Democratic Party officialdom, the chorus of third-rate Furies in Hollywood and broader feminist-“left” circles only discredits them. The vindictiveness and viciousness of the operation will make its way into public consciousness. Even now, this campaign does not have a deep resonance in the population.
Any sincere examination of the portions of evidence that emerged in the media indicates that the prosecution’s case was extremely weak. The collective testimony of the three principal witnesses—Annabella Sciorra, Mimi Haley and Jessica Mann—was full of inconsistencies, gaps and implausibilities. Without reviewing all the details that emerged, which we have done in previous articles, this much can be said: each of these women maintained long-term and friendly relations with Weinstein for years following the alleged attacks, asking him for jobs and favors, not indicating in a single email or text that they were his victims.
Mann’s cross-examination was the most damning. A vast number of emails and other communications passed between Weinstein and Mann. In the hours after the alleged sexual assault in 2013, Mann arranged to see Weinstein “voluntarily” twice in New York. Moreover, she went to some effort “to change her flight in order to see Weinstein those two times, including the day after the alleged attack, which was Weinstein’s birthday.”
As Deadline commented, “Mann wrote to Weinstein in the months and even years following the alleged assaults … she accepted party invitations, expressed gratitude (‘I feel so fabulous and beautiful, thank you for everything’) … Still other emails—sent by Mann to various friends—mentioned Weinstein in friendly or professionally beneficial terms.” The New York Post reported Mann’s admission in court “that she spent four hours holed up with him [Weinstein] in a hotel room in 2016—three years after she says he attacked her there—then gushed to him in an email, ‘I feel so fabulous and beautiful.’ ‘Thanks for everything.’”
Without a media onslaught, a prejudiced judge and the presence of one member who failed to mention an upcoming book she was writing about “predatory older men,” no jury devoted to the truth could have convicted Weinstein.
At the sentencing hearing Wednesday, Weinstein’s accusers had the opportunity to denounce him and demand the harshest possible sentence.
Mimi Haley told the court that Weinstein “violated my trust, my body and my basic right to reject his sexual advances. When he attacked me that evening, it scarred me emotionally and physically. It diminished my confidence and faith in people, and my confidence and faith in myself. I’m relieved he will now know he’s not above the law.”
Jessica Mann first attacked the defense attorneys, claiming that she had been “grilled” on the stand by lawyers who “twist the truth.” In fact, Weinstein’s lawyers, as was their obligation, merely pointed to the fact that Mann had sworn her love and friendship for Weinstein in the years following his alleged attack on her.
Bizarrely, Mann described Weinstein as “a senior citizen who is literally crumbling” before our eyes. “Behind bars, Harvey can have the chance to rehabilitate while being held accountable for his crimes,” Mann said, while asking for the judge to throw the book at her former lover. She said she hopes for a future where “we no longer have to worry about monsters hiding in our closet.”
Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Joan Illuzzi delivered the prosecution’s sentencing statement. Illuzzi asserted that Weinstein “got drunk on the power. He saw no authority over him, no limit to what he could take. He could take what he wanted knowing that there was very little anybody could do about it. He held all the cards and played them well.” She said the producer was a man distinguished by “a lack of human empathy, selfishness and a life rooted in criminality. Criminality that lasted for decades.” Illuzzi asked that Burke “sentence this defendant to the max or near the max. And that you give him consecutive time.”
Arthur Aidala, a member of Weinstein’s defense team, indicated he did not intend to rush. “This is a man's life here,” he said. Aidala argued for the minimum sentence of five years, observing that eight and a half years is the average sentence in New York for these offenses. Aidala went on, “He has no criminal history, he’s almost 70, he’s a broken-down man.” He said a longer sentence would be “a death penalty.”
Donna Rotunno asked that Weinstein’s career as a movie producer and creative person should be considered, along with the impact of a sentence on his family, including his grown and young children. “No matter what happens here today, judge, no one really wins,” Rotunno told the court. Even if the producer received the minimum sentence, considering his health issues, “there's a good chance that Mr. Weinstein won't live to see the end of that sentence, which is very sad.”
Rotunno argued that “Mr. Weinstein came with the forces of the media and the forces of the world pushing against the chance to have a real impartial jury in this case.”
In his own speech to the court, Weinstein explained that he thought the relationships with the various women were consensual and suggested, in the words of the New York Times, that “he was the victim of a rush to judgment.”
“We may have different truths, but I have great remorse for all of you,” Weinstein said. “I have great remorse for all the men and women going through this crisis right now in our country.” He argued, according to the Times, “that the #MeToo campaign was similar to the Red Scare of the 1950s and compared himself to the screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, who was jailed and blacklisted after joining the Communist Party. ‘I think that is what is happening now all over this country,’ Mr. Weinstein said.”
Addressing his accusers, Weinstein remarked that he had reread his correspondence with them and still saw their relationships as “a serious friendship, and that’s what I thought I had with you.” He continued, “I’m not going to say these aren’t great people. I had a wonderful time with these people. I’m confused, and I think men are confused,” he continued, turning once again to the #MeToo campaign. “I think about the thousands of men and women who are losing due process, and I’m worried about this country.”
Weinstein acknowledged his past bad behavior, according to USA Today. “Yes, I got in fights with my brother; yes, I said bad things to people, but there are so many people—thousands of people—who would say great things about me,” he said. “I would do a lot of things over. I would care less about the movies and care more about my children and my family.”
Weinstein, admitted, “I went to extraordinary lengths to hide my extramarital affairs.” If he could, he “would go back” and not have those affairs. He said both of his ex-wives had “no idea.” He told the courtroom, “I may never see my children again.” The producer said he regretted his past behavior, “I understand, I empathize. I’ve learned so many things.” Later, he said, “I’m really trying to be a better person.”
Judge Burke ignored the appeals of the defense and Weinstein’s own comments. “Although this is a first conviction, it is not a first offense,” he said. “There is evidence before me of other incidents of sexual assault involving a number of women, all of which are legitimate considerations for sentence.”
Weinstein, in fact, has never previously been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime. By the “evidence before me,” the judge presumably is referring to the so-called Molineux witnesses, i.e., witnesses permitted to testify about prior uncharged crimes by the defendant, a legally and constitutionally dubious practice. Burke allowed the testimony of several women whose alleged attacks fell outside the statute of limitations. In essence, by this logic, Weinstein received the lengthy sentence because of testimony relating to crimes that could not be proven or disproven.
No comments:
Post a Comment