Meanwhile, Arthur Aidala, one of Weinstein’s defense lawyers, told reporters that the evidence in the case “wasn’t overpowering”, as proven by how long the jury deliberated on a verdict. “
“There’s no doubt in my mind that if his name was Harvey Jones or Harold Jones, he would have not even been charged on this evidence,” Aidala said.
Mark Geragos, a defense lawyer, said it is almost malpractice to ignore jurors’ online activity, particularly in high-profile cases.
When Geragos was representing Scott Peterson, who was later found guilty of the 2002 murder of his pregnant wife Laci, it came to light that a woman told an internet chatroom she had duped both legal teams to get on the California jury.
“You just never know if someone is telling the truth,” said Geragos.
Weinstein’s lawyer, Donna Rotunno, told Reuters recently that her team was considering hiring a firm to investigate jurors’ social media use to weed out bias.
....
“The social media aspect can be enormously helpful in looking at people’s political motives,” said defense attorney Michael Bachner. He said Weinstein’s team will probably want to know about a potential juror’s ties to women’s causes, with “#MeToo being the obvious one.”
Third abuse allegation against Preti Patel ... during her Trade&Industry days - can Boris deliver the coup de grâce -
The conviction of Harvey Weinstein this week allowed the #MeToo movement to take stock. At first glance, a New York criminal case about rape in the movie industry might seem an odd juxtaposition to a Westminster story about the Home Secretary’s rows with staff. But one of the strengths of #MeToo – and one of its great weaknesses – is the rapidity with which it metastasized as a protest movement.
Sparked by the Weinstein story, #MeToo caught fire as a moment of global solidarity. Women felt free to expose for the first time the sexual leverage used by powerful men, men who long assumed their capacity for retribution would ensure silence. But from stories of rape and clear sexual blackmail (like Weinstein), it engineered conversations about lower-level sexual harassment (which characterised most stories from Westminster) and eventually workplace bullying (a charge that in Westminster has been levied, with respective denials, at John Bercow, Dominic Cummings and Priti Patel.)
Just seen this too! Total death sentence really. Fair play, but will it have an overall effect do you think on the industry now?Weinstein gets 23 years in the slammer. That's an effective death sentence.
Weinstein gets 23 years in the slammer. That's an effective death sentence.
Don't you mean a "life sentence"?
Weinstein gets 23 years in the slammer. That's an effective death sentence.
Weinstein gets 23 years in the slammer. That's an effective death sentence.
Weinstein gets 23 years in the slammer. That's an effective death sentence.
Don't you mean a "life sentence"?
No, I mean death sentence because he's likely to die in jail if he serves that long. Even if his lawyers bargain it down by 15 years, there's a good chance he could be murdered while he's locked up.