Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: More than two years after allegations against Harvey Weinstein sparked
Speaker 1: the Me Too movement, the Hollywood power broker is behind
Speaker 1: bars after being convicted of rape and a criminal sexual
Speaker 1: act by a New York jury. Wine Stein was cleared
Speaker 1: of the most severe charges, predatory sexual assault and rape
Speaker 1: in the first degree. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.
Speaker 1: Said the vertical change the legal landscape for victims of
Speaker 1: sexual abuse. I hope that survivors will see that in
Speaker 1: this justice system, prosecutors, judges and juries will believe them
Speaker 1: even when the facts are not simple, and even when
Speaker 1: the dynamics of the relationships between the survivors and the
Speaker 1: abuser are complicated. Joining me is Corey Stern, a partner
Speaker 1: at Levi Koonigsberg. So much attention has been placed on
Speaker 1: this case that started the meat too movement? What does
Speaker 1: the verdict signify beyond the case? I think it signifies
Speaker 1: a couple of things. One um that definitely add credibility
Speaker 1: and credence to victims voices. You know, five years ago,
Speaker 1: ten years ago, three years ago. I'm not sure that
Speaker 1: a prosecution would have even occurred on these charges that
Speaker 1: happened so long ago, and to I'm not sure a
Speaker 1: jury would have convicted on any of the charges. But
Speaker 1: now it's it's clear that juries prosecutors the country generally
Speaker 1: is not going to stand for types of crimes, these
Speaker 1: types of action. You know, it's it shows how much
Speaker 1: prosecutors have changed their thinking. And number two, I think
Speaker 1: it's it's a testament to how much society has changed.
Speaker 1: We right now are talking about a verdict that occurred
Speaker 1: by a man against a number of women. But it
Speaker 1: wouldn't be surprising if the next trial, if the next
Speaker 1: chapter included male on men elk crimes or you know,
Speaker 1: whereas before some people wouldn't have even given those types
Speaker 1: of those types of cases, those types of allegations, any credence.
Speaker 1: Just society has changed a lot for the better. So
Speaker 1: people's voices are being heard, and you know, this jury
Speaker 1: has spoken to that. In this case because of New
Speaker 1: York law, other women were allowed to testify about a pattern,
Speaker 1: some relating to alleged attacks a quarter century ago. Do
Speaker 1: you think in another case where it's just one victim
Speaker 1: and one defendant, it would be a similar outcome. I do.
Speaker 1: And in fact, in this case, those bolstering witnesses and
Speaker 1: the charges that they were being brought to provide evidence
Speaker 1: to support those were the charges that he was found
Speaker 1: not guilty of. And so the jury obviously split its
Speaker 1: verdict in some way and didn't find them guilty on
Speaker 1: every charge. But um, I don't think that it was
Speaker 1: that evidence that was what compelled this jury to find
Speaker 1: him guilty. I think they took the testimony of the
Speaker 1: actual victims in the case, um, and they found sufficient
Speaker 1: evidence from those statements alone, not from anybody else, but
Speaker 1: from those statements alone, to convictims. So I think absolutely,
Speaker 1: going forward, even without the bolstering type evidence, victims will
Speaker 1: have their day and perpetrators like Mr Weinstein will possibly
Speaker 1: and likely be found guilty. The jury hasn't spoken, so
Speaker 1: no one knows what the jury was thinking with that
Speaker 1: split verdict. But explain what the logical reasoning would say
Speaker 1: about it. Yeah, I mean, in my experience trying cases,
Speaker 1: you know, sometimes you have jurors, ten jurs eight jurors,
Speaker 1: twelve jurors, and they don't agree on everything, and you
Speaker 1: have people that dig in on their various positions and
Speaker 1: what ultimately becomes the verdict is oftentimes a compromise amongst
Speaker 1: the jurors, and it strikes me in this case that
Speaker 1: there were likely some jurors that felt he had probably
Speaker 1: done some things that were bad, but whether that rose
Speaker 1: to the level of a criminal act, you know, there
Speaker 1: may have been some some doubt about that. And then
Speaker 1: you likely had others who thought that he was guilty
Speaker 1: of everything and one of the worst people ever to
Speaker 1: walk the face of the earth. And because of the
Speaker 1: amount of time that went by in deliberations, because last
Speaker 1: week there was a note to the judge that said,
Speaker 1: if we're unanimous on one or two charges but not
Speaker 1: unanimous on the others, can we be hung on the others?
Speaker 1: It strikes me that this jury took its role seriously
Speaker 1: as a group and that there was likely some compromise
Speaker 1: involved in terms of what they found him guilty for
Speaker 1: and what they exonerated him on. They didn't take very
Speaker 1: long after getting what's called the dynamite charge by the judge,
Speaker 1: where the judge said, go back and try to come
Speaker 1: to an agreement, So they didn't take very long to
Speaker 1: come to an agreement after that, whereas on Friday they
Speaker 1: said that they were split. Yeah, I mean you also
Speaker 1: had you know, it was a weekend, and so had
Speaker 1: on Wednesday they've been at the exact same place and
Speaker 1: come to the judge and said, hey, we're split and
Speaker 1: we can't come to a verdict on these charges. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that there would have been the same result
Speaker 1: the next Thursday, you know, twenty four hours later or less,
Speaker 1: where they did reach a verdict. I think you had
Speaker 1: people that had time to really think, to ponder the evidence.
Speaker 1: And it's not that they were necessarily talking to anybody
Speaker 1: about it or reading about it. It's just, you know,
Speaker 1: you're dealing with this trial for such a long time.
Speaker 1: You're sitting through all the evidence, and then you get
Speaker 1: that that charge by the judge, which is like a
Speaker 1: hammer coming down on you. And you get to spend
Speaker 1: your weekend away at home with your family, and and
Speaker 1: you have some time away from the jury itself, away
Speaker 1: from the deliberations, and you really get to think. And
Speaker 1: I was not surprised that they actually came to a
Speaker 1: verdict as early as they were able to. I think
Speaker 1: that when you are able to take a few steps
Speaker 1: away from that room, from that group, from those deliberations,
Speaker 1: from your position, from everyone's position, and you ask yourself,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, what the heck am I doing here?
Speaker 1: And what do I really think? Sometimes it's easier to
Speaker 1: do with a little bit of time away, and so
Speaker 1: I think the timing of it makes sense. I think
Speaker 1: the verdict makes sense, and I'm not at all surprised.
Speaker 1: I've been talking to Corey Stern, a partner at Levi Koenigsberg,
Speaker 1: about the verdict today against Harvey Weinstein. Cross examinations in
Speaker 1: this case were really tough, and d A Cyrus Vans
Speaker 1: seemed to suggest that might change in the future. Do
Speaker 1: you think that cross examinations in the future will really
Speaker 1: be that much different, because you know, they still have
Speaker 1: a job to do. I don't think so. I mean
Speaker 1: I watched or listen to some of the cross examinations
Speaker 1: in this case, and you know, I thought that the
Speaker 1: defense lawyers were extremely skillful. One of the worst things
Speaker 1: for Harvey Weinstein in in trying to potentially appeal this
Speaker 1: verdict is how good of a job as lawyers did. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, it's really difficult to challenge a verdict when
Speaker 1: the jury clearly is able to find you not guilty
Speaker 1: of at least some of the things you're being charged with.
Speaker 1: I think there's a way in which across examination can
Speaker 1: take place that is respectful or as respectful as possible
Speaker 1: under the circumstances. I also think that lawyers have their
Speaker 1: own personal styles, and you have some lawyers that are
Speaker 1: just genuinely aggressive, and they're aggressive whether it's across examination,
Speaker 1: they're aggressive, regardless of whether it's an expert witness. They're
Speaker 1: just aggressive by nature. And then you have other lawyers who,
Speaker 1: either based on the region that they practice or sort
Speaker 1: of the way they were raised as a lawyer, you know,
Speaker 1: they're less aggressive and they're more conversational or humble, or
Speaker 1: they don't come across in the same aggressive way. So
Speaker 1: I don't necessarily think it's a strategy to destroy women
Speaker 1: on cross examination who claims of the victims. And now
Speaker 1: that's going to change. I think that, if anything, maybe
Speaker 1: people who are more aggressive will find a way to
Speaker 1: dial it down a bit. But I don't think you're
Speaker 1: going to stop seeing pretty intense cross examinations when someone's
Speaker 1: liberty is on the line, When someone's freedom is on
Speaker 1: the line, is there one thing or two that you
Speaker 1: can point to that the prosecution did, either strategy wise
Speaker 1: or in the courtroom that led to this verdict. I
Speaker 1: think that they very much allowed the victims to tell
Speaker 1: their story, and they didn't try and convince or to
Speaker 1: coax the victims into only telling part of the story
Speaker 1: so as to not get to the parts that were
Speaker 1: not good for them. So, for instance, you know, you
Speaker 1: have a victim who claims to have been assaulted or
Speaker 1: raped by Mr Weinstein and then weeks later or even
Speaker 1: less is with him again, and even in one instance
Speaker 1: had sex with him again consensually. It would be much
Speaker 1: easier to try and keep that information out the post assault,
Speaker 1: post rape, post bad conduct moment, because is it's not
Speaker 1: good for your case. It's not good for a jury
Speaker 1: to hear a I was raped, but be a few
Speaker 1: weeks later, a few days later, I decided to have
Speaker 1: sex with him. So I think that the prosecution owned
Speaker 1: all of the facts, not just the facts that were
Speaker 1: good for its case, and I think that by doing so,
Speaker 1: they were able to take some of the fire from
Speaker 1: what the defendants could have done on cross examination had
Speaker 1: they not owned it on the front end. So, for instance,
Speaker 1: it's always easier if if you put out there the
Speaker 1: bad facts before your adversary in the courtroom gets too
Speaker 1: and I think they did that really well. Here. As
Speaker 1: far as appeal, the defense attorney said, definitely, they're going
Speaker 1: to appeal this. Are there any grounds that stand out
Speaker 1: to you for appeal here? I mean, the one that
Speaker 1: the one that is most most likely to have any
Speaker 1: merit um, although I don't think it will work, is
Speaker 1: the fact that the jury was not sequestered, and it
Speaker 1: you know, it was a pretty highly publicized trial. Throughout
Speaker 1: the trial. I mean, I spoke about the trial on
Speaker 1: various media's and you know, there are hundreds of lawyers
Speaker 1: that were asked to comment um, at least locally in
Speaker 1: New York. It was on the news virtually every day.
Speaker 1: The defense lawyer in the case wrote an article for
Speaker 1: I think the you know, for for a national magazine
Speaker 1: on the eve of the verdict about, you know, her
Speaker 1: client deserving a fair a fair shot from the jury
Speaker 1: and so, you know, if if it had been me
Speaker 1: as the judge, and again I'm not being critical of anybody,
Speaker 1: but just to answer your question, I mean, I think
Speaker 1: that sequestering the jury may have made some sense. And
Speaker 1: if I were the defense in the case, I would
Speaker 1: argue that there's just no way living in the city
Speaker 1: wherever every juror must live in order to qualify to
Speaker 1: be a jurist for this trial, that there's no way
Speaker 1: living in the city they could not have been influenced
Speaker 1: or at least been exposed to media coverage of the
Speaker 1: case throughout the pendency of the trial. Once he faces
Speaker 1: a five to twenty five years sentence for the criminals
Speaker 1: actual act and as long as four years on a
Speaker 1: third degree rape count, any way of telling how the
Speaker 1: judge will handle this well, I mean, obviously it's a
Speaker 1: maximum of about twenty nine years thirty years if it's
Speaker 1: to run um consecutively. Uh, if a judge were to
Speaker 1: run the sentence concurrently, it could be up to twenty
Speaker 1: five years. You know, Mr Weinstein doesn't have any real
Speaker 1: criminal record. Um, if you were to if you were
Speaker 1: to take his name out of it, and if you
Speaker 1: were to take all the publicity associated with the case
Speaker 1: out of it, and you would have just sort of
Speaker 1: mark it up as as as defendant X, and you know,
Speaker 1: what would this person be looking at in terms of
Speaker 1: a sentence. My best guess is it won't be the maximum,
Speaker 1: but it also won't be too light, somewhere between ten
Speaker 1: to twelve maybe ten to fifteen years to run concurrently
Speaker 1: would be my guests. But again, you know, the judge
Speaker 1: might find that there are some extraneous circumstance, as the
Speaker 1: judge might have been moved in a way by some
Speaker 1: of the support testimony from other victims whose cases could
Speaker 1: not be brought because of the statute of limitations. So
Speaker 1: it's possible that it's that it's it's the maximum. But
Speaker 1: my guess is it's not going to be. The judge
Speaker 1: remanded Harvey Weinstein it's and turned down the defense request.
Speaker 1: Is that any indication of how he might rule, whether
Speaker 1: it's going to be, you know, tough or more lenient.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I mean, obviously, if if it's
Speaker 1: indicative of anything, it would be tougher rather than more lenient.
Speaker 1: That's just, you know, sort of obvious. But you know,
Speaker 1: this man was just convicted of two serious felonies and
Speaker 1: he's facing up to twenty nine years in jail. He
Speaker 1: was permitted to be out on bond during the pendency
Speaker 1: of his trial, but the trial is now over and
Speaker 1: he's been convicted, and so I don't think that it's
Speaker 1: as strong there's any strong argument for him to be
Speaker 1: permitted to stay out of jail now that he's been convicted,
Speaker 1: And I would chalk that more up to that's kind
Speaker 1: of the right thing to do under the circumstances. Is
Speaker 1: irrespective of who the defendant is, irrespective of how he
Speaker 1: may have never been in trouble before, irrespective of how
Speaker 1: much money he has or how much bond he's able
Speaker 1: to put up. Um. I wouldn't read too much into that.
Speaker 1: I think that, if anything, it's just the right thing
Speaker 1: to do. If someone was going to read, you know,
Speaker 1: sort of the tea leaves on it, obviously to judge
Speaker 1: would be seen as being more strict and and and
Speaker 1: more likely to to you know, to to sentence him
Speaker 1: to a more severe sentence. But I just see it
Speaker 1: as what I would normally expect in a case where
Speaker 1: someone's been convicted of two crimes that involve you know,
Speaker 1: DV and sexual act. Thanks Corey. That's Corey Stern, a
Speaker 1: partner at Levi Konigsberg. Remember you can listen to the
Speaker 1: latest legal topics in the news anytime on our Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law podcast. Just go to iTunes, SoundCloud or Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: slash podcast, slash Law. I'm John Russo and this is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Ye