Harvey Weinstein NYC Trial: Jurors Reveal They Were Pressured to Convict and Regret Verdict

Two jurors involved in the conviction of Harvey Weinstein have claimed they were coerced into their decision, expressing regrets about their verdict. This revelation comes from sworn affidavits submitted by Weinstein’s legal team in a recent court filing.

Jurors Pressure Claims Unveiled

The jurors allege that they faced intimidation during the jury’s deliberations, which led to Harvey Weinstein’s conviction on one of three charges in June 2025. One juror stated, “I regret the verdict,” and indicated that without such pressures, the jury may have reached a different conclusion regarding the charge against Miriam Haley.

Details of Intimidation

• The unnamed juror described being screamed at and threatened by fellow panel members.
• One juror recalled a tense moment where another juror aggressively confronted him, saying, “You don’t know me. I’ll catch you outside.”
• Concerns over their personal safety led some jurors to conform to the majority view.

Background of the Case

Harvey Weinstein, 73, was convicted of a criminal sex act pertaining to an assault on production assistant Miriam Haley in 2006. He was acquitted on another charge involving psychotherapist Kaja Sokola, while a mistrial was declared for the rape charge involving actress Jessica Mann.

Deliberation Challenges

The jury deliberations were described as tumultuous, with accusations and disputes among jurors. For instance, one juror claimed another accused him of accepting bribes from Weinstein, which significantly influenced the verdict outcome.

Judicial Responses

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber noted that such heated deliberations are not uncommon. However, he acknowledged that this particular case was unusually chaotic. Following the trial, two jurors questioned the foreman’s claims of bullying.

Implications for Weinstein

Weinstein is currently seeking to overturn his conviction for first-degree criminal sex act. Additionally, he faces further legal challenges with an ongoing case in California. His sentencing for the June conviction has not yet been set.

This situation highlights the complexities and potential pitfalls of jury deliberations in high-stakes trials, where external pressures can profoundly affect verdicts.