Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Drogo

Hollywood's Dirty Little (Open) Secrets: Harvey Weinstein and Others Like Him

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Any lawyers with any guesses on if those questions are good signs or bad signs for a guilty verdict?

My guess is bad; with how quickly they asked for a bunch of legal clarification, they clearly entered deliberation without having understood the jury instructions.  That doesn't tend to improve much with clarification (which is really just repetition).  It's hard enough to get jurors to just evaluate what they're supposed to evaluate when they do understand the task in front of them; when they're murky, they rely even more on stereotypes and "well, if X happened to me, I would do Y" analysis.

From the additional questions, they seem to have been successfully redirected by the defense onto the victims' behavior, rather than whether his constituted a crime (and, if so, which one).  I'm glad they also asked about the Black Cube stuff, but my guess at this point is hung jury.

When Cosby was finally convicted, I was elated and relieved - a rich, powerful man was just convicted of rape?! - but my second thought was, "Okay, now let's see a rich, powerful, white man put away for rape, too."  I don't think we're there, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

  • Like 8
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post

7 minutes ago, Bastet said:

My guess is bad; with how quickly they asked for a bunch of legal clarification, they clearly entered deliberation without having understood the jury instructions.  That doesn't tend to improve much with clarification (which is really just repetition).  It's hard enough to get jurors to just evaluate what they're supposed to evaluate when they do understand the task in front of them; when they're murky, they rely even more on stereotypes and "well, if X happened to me, I would do Y" analysis.

From the additional questions, they seem to have been successfully redirected by the defense onto the victims' behavior, rather than whether his constituted a crime (and, if so, which one).  I'm glad they also asked about the Black Cube stuff, but my guess at this point is hung jury.

When Cosby was finally convicted, I was elated and relieved - a rich, powerful man was just convicted of rape?! - but my second thought was, "Okay, now let's see a rich, powerful, white man put away for rape, too."  I don't think we're there, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I find them asking for the Black Cube stuff very intriguing because when I was on a jury we were told that we could make inferences based on the evidence.  In my case, it was a drug case where the police confiscated a large bag of cocaine, a scale, a very dirty spoon, a bunch of baggies, and a large wad of cash.  The law of that state allowed us to deduce that whoever possessed all of these was a drug dealer.  Interesting enough, all of that evidence was brought back into the room with us as we deliberated.  I was surprised to see that the jury had to ask for the emails be made available to them.  I don't know about New York law, but in my opinion that piece of information is pretty damning.  Like I said before, innocent men don't hire ex-Mossad agents to threaten women.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I know this is a horrible thing to say, but if there's a hung jury/not guilty verdict, then I hope the jurymembers will enjoy being pariahs for the rest of their lives.

Edited by Spartan Girl
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Bastet said:

My guess is bad; with how quickly they asked for a bunch of legal clarification, they clearly entered deliberation without having understood the jury instructions.  That doesn't tend to improve much with clarification (which is really just repetition).  It's hard enough to get jurors to just evaluate what they're supposed to evaluate when they do understand the task in front of them; when they're murky, they rely even more on stereotypes and "well, if X happened to me, I would do Y" analysis.

From the additional questions, they seem to have been successfully redirected by the defense onto the victims' behavior, rather than whether his constituted a crime (and, if so, which one).  I'm glad they also asked about the Black Cube stuff, but my guess at this point is hung jury.

When Cosby was finally convicted, I was elated and relieved - a rich, powerful man was just convicted of rape?! - but my second thought was, "Okay, now let's see a rich, powerful, white man put away for rape, too."  I don't think we're there, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

If it’s a hung jury how likely do you think it is that the prosecutor will decide to retry the case? How would that affect the charges in LA? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Dani said:

If it’s a hung jury how likely do you think it is that the prosecutor will decide to retry the case? How would that affect the charges in LA? 

I don't think a hung jury would hinder the charges and upcoming trial in LA.  A conviction in New York would be ideal, but the prosecutors in LA can look at what may have possibly gone wrong with the first trial.  The prosecutors have a slight advantage in LA because they know how Weinstein's lawyers approached the first set of charges, unless Harvey gets new lawyers for that trial.  

If there is a NY retrial, I would imagine it happening after any trial in LA.  Again, ideally you want Harvey going into the trial as a convicted rapist not just an accused rapist.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

2 minutes ago, BW Manilowe said:

Variety, as of a posted time of 2 minutes ago, is reporting the Weinstein jury appears deadlocked on the most serious counts. (Sigh)

It sounds like they've got a verdict on the rapes.  I could live with a hung jury on the sexual predator charges if they convict on one or both rapes.  However, maybe I am just old and jaded, but I suspect that the jury is going to aquit on the rapes and deadlock on the rest.  As noted above, it is going to take a very long time, if ever, for the justice system to recognize that victims of sexual violence do not behave in a single predicable fashion and may sometimes even do things that seem to contradict their claims in the aftermath of the trauma.

  • Like 6
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Dani said:

I’m also not a lawyer but I agree with @Ohiopirate02. The fact that they are spending so much time on Annabella Sciorra and the question about the statute of limitations makes me think there is a least one person sympathetic to Weinstein. I wouldn’t be surprised by a hung jury or a guilty verdict on one or both or the rape charges but not guilty on the predatory assault charges. 

I haven't followed the case closely, but, based on what I have read and seen, I would be surprised if there were convictions.  I'm no fan of his at all, but, just the evidence, seemed lacking.  It seems like they are having some issues, but, you never know. Sometimes, they get serious when the judge says to go back and get it done. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, BW Manilowe said:

Variety, as of a posted time of 2 minutes ago, is reporting the Weinstein jury appears deadlocked on the most serious counts. (Sigh)

My reading of that article says that they are finding him guilty of the lesser rape charges, and deadlocked on the more serious ones.  Again I am basing this on my time as a juror, the prosecution loads up the possible charges in an attempt to get a conviction on one of them.  They want the jury to find the defendant guilty of all of them, but one or two guilty verdicts is enough overall.  If I am correct, this is probably what we would have gotten if he had taken a plea deal or pleaded guilty to the initial charges.  I really want to know why the judge sent them back to deliberate some more.  Can't we just be satisfied with HW being a convicted rapist?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

My reading of that article says that they are finding him guilty of the lesser rape charges, and deadlocked on the more serious ones.  Again I am basing this on my time as a juror, the prosecution loads up the possible charges in an attempt to get a conviction on one of them.  They want the jury to find the defendant guilty of all of them, but one or two guilty verdicts is enough overall.  If I am correct, this is probably what we would have gotten if he had taken a plea deal or pleaded guilty to the initial charges.  I really want to know why the judge sent them back to deliberate some more.  Can't we just be satisfied with HW being a convicted rapist?

Like you, not a lawyer, but in my limited experience in the court system; the judge always asks the jury to go back and try just a little longer when they report they can't reach a verdict.  They will usually then go back and deliberate for a bit, and, if they cannot come to a consensus; the judge will declare a hung jury and dismiss them. 

I suspect the current situation is just a formality and, if nothing happens in the next day or two; the jury will report their verdicts or lack thereof and this trial will be over.

Edited by doodlebug
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Like you, not a lawyer, but in my limited experience in the court system; the judge always asks the jury to go back and try just a little longer when they report they can't reach a verdict.  They will usually then go back and deliberate for a bit, and, if they cannot come to a consensus; the judge will declare a hung jury and dismiss them. 

I suspect the current situation is just a formality and, if nothing happens in the next day or two; the jury will report their verdicts or lack thereof and this trial will be over.

When I got to legally hold a big bag of cocaine served on the jury, we were deadlocked on one charge but found the defendant guilty of the other two.  I believe we voted not guilty on the third charge just to wrap things up.  I guess the judge is forcing the jury to do just that.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

My reading of that article says that they are finding him guilty of the lesser rape charges, and deadlocked on the more serious ones.  Again I am basing this on my time as a juror, the prosecution loads up the possible charges in an attempt to get a conviction on one of them.  They want the jury to find the defendant guilty of all of them, but one or two guilty verdicts is enough overall.  If I am correct, this is probably what we would have gotten if he had taken a plea deal or pleaded guilty to the initial charges.  I really want to know why the judge sent them back to deliberate some more.  Can't we just be satisfied with HW being a convicted rapist?

Regarding the bolded: According to this USA Today article, which was posted a little over an hour ago, they’re deadlocked on the 2 predatory sexual assault counts against Weinstein & have unanimous verdicts on the remaining 3 counts.

  • Like 3
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

My reading of that article says that they are finding him guilty of the lesser rape charges, and deadlocked on the more serious ones.  Again I am basing this on my time as a juror, the prosecution loads up the possible charges in an attempt to get a conviction on one of them.  They want the jury to find the defendant guilty of all of them, but one or two guilty verdicts is enough overall.  If I am correct, this is probably what we would have gotten if he had taken a plea deal or pleaded guilty to the initial charges.  I really want to know why the judge sent them back to deliberate some more.  Can't we just be satisfied with HW being a convicted rapist?

That’s the way I read it to. I’m not surprised. The predatory sexual assault charges seems harder to prove since it hinged on rape from the 90’s. The maximum sentence on the three other charges are 54 years so I would be thrilled with a conviction. Plus he still has to face the charges in LA and the civil suits. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Reading the tea leaves based on what questions are asked is a fool's errand.   Jurors ask questions because they can.   Or maybe they are being thorough.   Who knows.

 

As for ANY reporting about how the jury is headed that is way premature.   No one knows until they read their verdicts.   Or announce the deadlock.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

As for ANY reporting about how the jury is headed that is way premature.   No one knows until they read their verdicts.   Or announce the deadlock.

For clarity here is what the jury’s note said. 

"We the jury ask if we can be hung on counts one and three, and unanimous on the others," 

I think it a reasonably safe assumption that they are unanimously guilty on count two and four because not guilty on those would automatically mean not guilty on one and three, respectively. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

The New York Times has a article on what the note could mean. 
What the Jury’s Note Could Mean for the Weinstein Verdict

Quote

Does the note suggest that jurors believe he is guilty?

Not necessarily, but it does suggest that they may have reached a guilty verdict on at least one of the lower charges involving Ms. Mann or Ms. Haley.

If the jurors are following the complicated charging sheet correctly, their note indicates that they are at least mulling a guilty verdict on one or more of the charges of rape and criminal sex act.

Technically speaking, the jurors could not be deadlocked on the higher charge of predatory sexual assault without having first decided that Mr. Weinstein was guilty of a lower charge, legal experts said.

Said a different way, if the jurors had decided to acquit Mr. Weinstein on the charges involving Ms. Mann and Ms. Haley, they would not need to continue deliberating on the charges involving Ms. Sciorra.

Though Ms. Sciorra’s rape allegation is too old to be charged as a separate crime under state law, it can be used to prove the sexual predator charge.

There is one caveat here, said Mark A. Bederow, a Manhattan defense lawyer. It is possible that some of the jurors have concluded that Ms. Mann and Ms. Haley are not to believed and are looking to convict Mr. Weinstein based on Ms. Sciorra’s testimony alone.

In this scenario, the note may be an effort by the others on the jury to have the judge step in and instruct their fellow panelists that that is not a viable legal option.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

If he gets convicted, I hope the judge doesn't let him stay out of jail while he appeals,

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

13 hours ago, Dani said:

There is one caveat here, said Mark A. Bederow, a Manhattan defense lawyer. It is possible that some of the jurors have concluded that Ms. Mann and Ms. Haley are not to believed and are looking to convict Mr. Weinstein based on Ms. Sciorra’s testimony alone.

So we don't know what the jury is thinking.  

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, doodlebug said:

It sounds like they've got a verdict on the rapes.  I could live with a hung jury on the sexual predator charges if they convict on one or both rapes.  However, maybe I am just old and jaded, but I suspect that the jury is going to aquit on the rapes and deadlock on the rest.  As noted above, it is going to take a very long time, if ever, for the justice system to recognize that victims of sexual violence do not behave in a single predicable fashion and may sometimes even do things that seem to contradict their claims in the aftermath of the trauma.

 

21 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

My reading of that article says that they are finding him guilty of the lesser rape charges, and deadlocked on the more serious ones.  Again I am basing this on my time as a juror, the prosecution loads up the possible charges in an attempt to get a conviction on one of them.  They want the jury to find the defendant guilty of all of them, but one or two guilty verdicts is enough overall.  If I am correct, this is probably what we would have gotten if he had taken a plea deal or pleaded guilty to the initial charges.  I really want to know why the judge sent them back to deliberate some more.  Can't we just be satisfied with HW being a convicted rapist?

 

20 hours ago, doodlebug said:

Like you, not a lawyer, but in my limited experience in the court system; the judge always asks the jury to go back and try just a little longer when they report they can't reach a verdict.  They will usually then go back and deliberate for a bit, and, if they cannot come to a consensus; the judge will declare a hung jury and dismiss them. 

I suspect the current situation is just a formality and, if nothing happens in the next day or two; the jury will report their verdicts or lack thereof and this trial will be over.

 

20 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

When I got to legally hold a big bag of cocaine served on the jury, we were deadlocked on one charge but found the defendant guilty of the other two.  I believe we voted not guilty on the third charge just to wrap things up.  I guess the judge is forcing the jury to do just that.

I am a lawyer, and in fact am a prosecutor in NY.  The charge to continue deliberating is pretty common, and no, the judge isn't asking them to just go through the motions.  He is telling them that their oaths as jurors require them to continue to deliberate, to consider the arguments and opinions of the other jurors, and if at all possible, to return a verdict.  The judge is NOT saying, just compromise on what you can't agree to and get home.  In fact, jurors are instructed specifically not to forgo their own honestly held convictions just to end the case, or to avoid an unpleasant duty.  In NY, at least, a jury that just says, let's acquit so we can go home, has violated it's oath to the court, and has not done it's duty.  There's obviously no punishment for that (and we may never know, in most cases, that any such thing occurred), but it's in direct violation of the instructions and their oaths.

19 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Reading the tea leaves based on what questions are asked is a fool's errand.   Jurors ask questions because they can.   Or maybe they are being thorough.   Who knows.

 

As for ANY reporting about how the jury is headed that is way premature.   No one knows until they read their verdicts.   Or announce the deadlock.

I just finished a jury trial, and the notes were making me crazy .I was convinced they were misunderstanding the evidence, didn't understand the law, and were going to find the defendant not guilty, or at least not guilty of the most important charges.  In fact, they were just being thorough (taking their oaths seriously), and convicted the defendant of all charges.  Even when they are walking out to announce the verdict, no one knows what it will be--they are told to give a note that just says "Verdict" without revealing what the verdict is.  It's the worst part of the trial, as an attorney, because it's the most important part and you can't do anything to affect it at that point.  You can't even really tell what's going on in the room.  It's very tense, even on low-level cases.

  • Like 16
  • Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

The way things are going with rich white guy criminals, if he spends much time at all behind bars I'd be surprised.

Speaking as a Canadian here - genuine question - can a President pardon someone like Weinstein (or Bill Cosby for that matter) or can s/he only use a pardon for specific kinds of crimes?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

My understanding is they can pardon anyone who applies, and that the President decides to pardon (for federal crimes only).   However, there are a lot of applications for a Presidential pardon that never even are mentioned.    You don't even have to be convicted or indicted to be pardoned (Richard Nixon for example).  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

My understanding is they can pardon anyone who applies, and that the President decides to pardon.   However, there are a lot of applications for a Presidential pardon that never even are mentioned.    You don't even have to be convicted or indicted to be pardoned (Richard Nixon for example).  

Can't the president only pardon people for federal crimes? Also isn't accepting a pardon basically an admission of guilt?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

A president can pardon any federal crime, and as noted with Nixon, even future crimes.  The process involves an application, but as we saw this week, the process isn't mandatory.  If there were a federal charge against Weinstein, it wouldn't stun me to see Trump pass it out, based on the 11 pardons this week.  A lot of those pardons were for people who were already out of prison and moving on with their (incredibly wealthy) lives.  Accepting it isn't an admission of guilt; people often argue that they are wrongfully convicted and should be pardoned because they are factually innocent, but can't get it through the courts.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, Ailianna said:

I am a lawyer, and in fact am a prosecutor in NY.  The charge to continue deliberating is pretty common, and no, the judge isn't asking them to just go through the motions.  He is telling them that their oaths as jurors require them to continue to deliberate, to consider the arguments and opinions of the other jurors, and if at all possible, to return a verdict.  The judge is NOT saying, just compromise on what you can't agree to and get home.  In fact, jurors are instructed specifically not to forgo their own honestly held convictions just to end the case, or to avoid an unpleasant duty.  In NY, at least, a jury that just says, let's acquit so we can go home, has violated it's oath to the court, and has not done it's duty.  There's obviously no punishment for that (and we may never know, in most cases, that any such thing occurred), but it's in direct violation of the instructions and their oaths.

Out of curiosity do you find that juries are more likely to ask to hang on a Friday? I wondered if the impeding weekend played a part in the jury feeling like they couldn’t come to an agreement. 

2 hours ago, Ailianna said:

I just finished a jury trial, and the notes were making me crazy .I was convinced they were misunderstanding the evidence, didn't understand the law, and were going to find the defendant not guilty, or at least not guilty of the most important charges.  In fact, they were just being thorough (taking their oaths seriously), and convicted the defendant of all charges.  Even when they are walking out to announce the verdict, no one knows what it will be--they are told to give a note that just says "Verdict" without revealing what the verdict is.  It's the worst part of the trial, as an attorney, because it's the most important part and you can't do anything to affect it at that point.  You can't even really tell what's going on in the room.  It's very tense, even on low-level cases.

That’s nice to hear. I think high profile cases have created this narrative that any jury that doesn’t follow the court of public opinion means that jurors are stupid or easily manipulated. That wasn’t my experience on a jury but sometimes the news makes me think that was a fluke. 

I know juries are unpredictable but I’d like to believe that most jurors have good intentions and take the oath seriously. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

L'Arche founder Jean Vanier (a celebrity of in international charities circles) sexually abused at least six women over a 35 year period. Of course, this has only come to light after the creep escaped justice by dying last year at the age of 90. I almost wish I believed in Hell l so I could be assured that the piece of excrement was experiencing divine justice.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51596516

  • Like 7
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, praeceptrix said:

L'Arche founder Jean Vanier (a celebrity of in international charities circles) sexually abused at least six women over a 35 year period. Of course, this has only come to light after the creep escaped justice by dying last year at the age of 90. I almost wish I believed in Hell l so I could be assured that the piece of excrement was experiencing divine justice.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51596516

Have faith! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Dani said:

Out of curiosity do you find that juries are more likely to ask to hang on a Friday? I wondered if the impeding weekend played a part in the jury feeling like they couldn’t come to an agreement. 

That’s nice to hear. I think high profile cases have created this narrative that any jury that doesn’t follow the court of public opinion means that jurors are stupid or easily manipulated. That wasn’t my experience on a jury but sometimes the news makes me think that was a fluke. 

I know juries are unpredictable but I’d like to believe that most jurors have good intentions and take the oath seriously. 

I think any jury that has been out for 4 days probably feels like they have discussed everything.  But I've also seen juries given multiple Allen charges (the term for the instruction to keep deliberating when a jury thinks it might be hung) and still decide a case.  I had a hung jury on a rape case for a while, but after a couple more days they were able to decide.  I always think that there is an even higher burden of proof for sex crimes, since there's usually only the victim's word as proof, and because people really don't want to mistakenly label someone as a sex offender.  Honestly, I think they have at least two or three more days of deliberation.  Something you don't think of if you aren't in the court, is that every note, every read back of testimony, every time they have to come in to court, they have to stop deliberating.  If they spend two hours in court listening to a read back, that's two hours they aren't deliberating.  Then when they start again, they have to discuss what they just heard, if it answers the question, and so forth.  It's a slow process, but that helps avoid a rush to judgment too.

Edited by Ailianna
  • Like 4
  • Useful 7

Share this post


Link to post

My phone has been blowing up with notifications about this, and I am so thrilled. Last week, I just finished Kantor and Twohey's book on breaking the Weinstein story and I am currently about 50 pages away from completing Ronan Farrow's book on his own reporting about it. Even though I'd been following the news and knew the basics, I'm still astonished and sickened by how long he was able to prey on women. 

When is his LA trial?

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I’m thrilled he was found guilty on the two charges, but it’s so problematic that he was acquitted of the predatory charges. He is the epitome of the privileged white male predator. But because the additional victims didn’t behave or react in the socially acceptable way for rape victims, they were not believed.

This hurts my heart. 

Edited by BlackberryJam
  • Like 22
  • Sad 7

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Beany Malone said:

I don't disagree but I'm also just happy that a jury convicted him on some of the charges and that he was led straight to jail.  I just hope this is a sign of things to come for other powerful white men who have come under scrutity in the last few years.

I am so happy he was taken straight to jail pending sentencing. My feeling about the verdict as so complicated. On the one hand GUILTY MOTHERFUCKER, YAS! On the other, I want to hold the other women who testified and comfort them. 

  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, MikaelaArsenault said:

I'm sure that Harvey will be getting a lot of prison time as well.

One of the charges is 5-20 years and the other one is probation up to 4 years in prison.  Sadly, I don't think the judge will sentence him to the max, but he will see at least 5 years.  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Sadly, I don't think the judge will sentence him to the max, but he will see at least 5 years.  

I am just so sick of wealthy men avoiding any consequences for their crimes that it would be a thrill to me to see him even get 4 months - and since it's likely that at minimum he'll get 5 years I can live with that!  He's been named and shamed.  I like that.

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

10 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

One of the charges is 5-20 years and the other one is probation up to 4 years in prison.  Sadly, I don't think the judge will sentence him to the max, but he will see at least 5 years.  

He should be in for more than 5 years.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

One of the charges is 5-20 years and the other one is probation up to 4 years in prison.  Sadly, I don't think the judge will sentence him to the max, but he will see at least 5 years.  

If he gets a Brock Turner sentence, I will fucking RAGE.

  • Like 21

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

If he gets a Brock Turner sentence, I will fucking RAGE.

Well, since piece of utter shit Aaron Persky is not the judge presiding over this case (or the judge of any court anymore, thankfully), I'd say the chances of that are happily nil.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Wish they found him guilty on all the counts, but it's better than nothing.

We got you, motherfucker. We got you.

Agreed, I had been afraid that the jury would acquit on all charges, so the convictions on the lesser charges are a relief. If he gets at least 5 years, I will be more or less satisfied even though only 5 years is in no way justice. But that’s time that he can’t be raping other victims, and maybe he will die in prison. 
If he is also convicted and sentenced in the California case, how will that work? Would he be serving both sentences concurrently? NY and CA flip a coin to see whose prison system he goes into?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I hope the judge sentences him to consecutive time & not concurrent time.

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

Is the judge required to sentence him to at least 5 years?  Or can the judge choose to sentence him for 5 months, time served, probation, blah blah?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Wish they found him guilty on all the counts, but it's better than nothing.

I agree.  I wanted it to all come back guilty as fuck.

One thing I do find a little comfort in is that he has been named, shamed, lost his position, his authority, his power.  He isn't going to be lunched, brunched and feted at Oscar galas.  he doesn't get to call the shots and decides who has a career and who doesn't.  That, as well as being a convicted felon and going to Rikers.

  • Like 23

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

I’m thrilled he was found guilty on the two charges, but it’s so problematic that he was acquitted of the predatory charges. He is the epitome of the privileged white male predator. But because the additional victims didn’t behave or react in the socially acceptable way for rape victims, they were not believed.

This hurts my heart. 

I have zero doubt that he did it but the predatory charges hinged entirely on a rape from the mid-90’s. The jury may have believed her but not felt that it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

7 minutes ago, izabella said:

Is the judge required to sentence him to at least 5 years?  Or can the judge choose to sentence him for 5 months, time served, probation, blah blah?

The judge can’t sentence him for less than 5 years. Time served and probation does not effect the sentence just how long he actually spends in jail.

  • Like 6
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size