Two jurors who voted to convict Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault in June now say they regret their decision and only did so because they were bullied by others on the panel. The claims surfaced in a newly unsealed court filing as Weinstein’s legal team pushes to overturn his latest conviction.
Weinstein’s lawyers argue that the guilty verdict was tainted by “threats, intimidation, and extraneous bias,” and that the judge failed to handle the issue properly during the trial, according to AP News. The filing, made public on Thursday, includes sworn affidavits from two jurors who said they felt pressured by their fellow jurors to find the former movie mogul guilty.
One juror said she was yelled at in the jury room and told, “we have to get rid of you.” The other juror said anyone who doubted Weinstein’s guilt was intensely questioned by the rest of the panel. “If I could have voted by secret ballot, I would have returned a not guilty verdict on all three charges,” the juror wrote.
“I regret the verdict,” that juror added. “Without the intimidation from other jurors, I believe that the jury would have hung on the Miriam Haley charge.”
The 73-year-old producer was convicted of first-degree criminal sex act for allegedly forcing oral sex on TV and film production assistant Miriam Haley in 2006. He was acquitted of a second sex act charge involving Polish psychotherapist and former model Kaja Sokola, while the judge declared a mistrial on the final count, which accused him of raping former actor Jessica Mann.
This trial was Weinstein’s second time facing many of the same accusations. His 2020 conviction, which became a major milestone in the #MeToo movement, was overturned last year after New York’s highest court found that the judge allowed improper testimony from women whose allegations were not part of the charges. That ruling opened the door for a retrial, which concluded this past June.
Now, Weinstein’s attorney Arthur Aidala says the new affidavits show the verdict cannot stand. He argues that the jurors’ accounts prove Weinstein did not receive a fair trial and that their decisions were influenced by coercion rather than evidence.
The former Hollywood producer, who once dominated the film industry with hits like Shakespeare in Love and Pulp Fiction, has consistently denied all allegations of non-consensual sexual activity. He is already serving a prison sentence in California following a separate conviction there.
Judge Curtis Farber has given Manhattan prosecutors until November 10 to complete their own investigation into the claims and file a written response. He plans to rule on December 22, meaning any decision on a retrial or sentencing will come after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg faces reelection on November 4.
For now, Weinstein’s future remains uncertain. If the judge finds merit in the jurors’ claims, it could lead to the reversal of his latest conviction—or even a third trial. The case has continued to draw intense attention, both for its connection to the #MeToo movement and for the broader questions it raises about jury pressure in high-profile trials.
Despite the mounting legal challenges, Weinstein remains one of the most notorious figures to emerge from the movement, and his ongoing court battles continue to test how far the justice system can go in balancing accountability with fairness.
