Weinstein Jury Foreperson Complains of Deep Divide Among Jurors

The jury deliberating in Harvey Weinstein’s case on Monday asked the judge the rules related to a hung jury as the foreperson indicated he’s made up his mind while others pressure him.

The juror note from the foreperson Monday morning said the “situation” in deliberations “isn’t very good.”

The actions indicate the jury is at loggerheads after roughly three days of deliberations.

After a private conversation among the foreperson, judge and attorneys, Weinstein’s attorneys moved unsuccessfully for a mistrial based on the foreperson’s remarks—their second mistrial motion in the three days since the case went to the jury.

According to the Weinstein attorney, the foreperson said he’s not changing his mind while other jurors “fight together and I don’t like it.” The foreperson also said other jurors were bringing up Weinstein’s past.

A separate note from the full jury Monday morning asked the judge to reread the instructions around reasonable doubt and deliberations, “especially in terms of avoiding a hung jury.”

The notes came after a juror on Friday told the judge in a separate conversation that there was “shunning” of some jurors’ views taking place behind closed doors and that the deliberations aren’t “just and fair.”

Both jurors who expressed concerns were men on the 12-person jury, which has seven women and five men.

The judge reread the reasonable doubt standard and other standard instructions to the jury and also reminded them they can only consider evidence from the trial.

Over a six-week trial, jurors heard from three accusers accusing the former Miramax co-founder of sexual assault and rape. Weinstein’s attorneys said the encounters were consensual. His 2020 conviction was overturned last year by New York’s highest court, which said he didn’t get a fair trial.

The retrial has been seen partly at a litmus test for the endurance of #MeToo movement that allegations against Weinstein helped jumpstart.

The case is People v. Weinstein, N.Y. Sup. Ct., jury deliberations 6/9/25.