Harvey Weinstein juror says verdict was not meant to be a message about the #MeToo movement – CBS News

One of the 12 jurors who found Harvey Weinstein guilty of rape and a criminal sex act said they focused on the law and the testimony they heard and did not let the cultural impact of the #MeToo movement influence their decision. Drew, who was juror number nine, said the deliberations took an emotional toll on him and the other jurors.

He told “CBS This Morning” co-host Gayle King that the #MeToo movement did not impact the verdict.

“That’s not the job, and it’s not what we were asked to do,” he said. “It would be an adulteration of the process to take outside factors and have that weigh on our decision-making process and eventual findings. And, you know, I have no appetite or aspirations to be the voice or face of both the jury and the larger movement. It’s, you know, this case, these people, this is our decision.”

He said it didn’t mean anything to him that some of Weinstein’s alleged victims thanked the jury publicly.

“I took no joy in any aspect of it, you know, this is a serious matter for serious crimes,” he said.

Drew said the jury took the five-day long deliberation process seriously and that coming to a unanimous verdict required a close look at the legal definitions of the charges.

He said actress Jessica Mann’s testimony was compelling enough for a guilty verdict of third degree rape, but not enough to convict Weinstein of the most serious charges he was facing.

“It wasn’t rape in the first degree. There was no physical compulsion with the threat of bodily harm or death,” he said. “But there was no consent given, despite a lack of physical resistance, and a reasonable person should have known that there was no consent given in that instance.”

Mann testified that Weinstein sexually assaulted her several times during their yearslong on-again-off-again relationship.

Describing how Mann’s testimony affected him, Drew said, “On a personal level, it affected me very deeply … But that’s not what we were there to do. We were there to do a job and to interpret the law and make a decision based on evidence and testimony.”

Asked if the testimony that women can be sexually assaulted but still maintain contact with their attacker factored into the decision, Drew said, “In the earlier parts of the deliberation, there was huge discourse about things of that nature.”

“I ask that because so many people have trouble understanding that. Did that factor into your decision-making process?” King asked.

“The decision making, no,” Drew said. “It’s an alleged incident, not kind of this whole canvas of relationship. It’s, you know, husbands can rape their wives. And it’s a complicated issue, for sure, but it was our contention that it’s one incident.”

Three of the five charges stemmed from Mann’s accusations. The other two focused on Miriam Haley, a former production assistant who testified Weinstein sexual assaulted her at his apartment in 2006.

Mann and Haley both took the stand after “Sopranos” actress Annabella Sciorra testified, as the prosecution tried to show a pattern of behavior to the jury. Weinstein was charged with predatory sexual assault, but was found not guilty. 

Drew said Sciorra’s testimony was “compelling in and of itself.”

“But these are serious allegations, and that’s a very high burden that the prosecution took upon itself in bringing these charges,” he said. “It’s 27 years ago, and in this country, you know, you and I and even Harvey Weinstein are innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt of the opposite.”

Asked if it influenced him that Weinstein did not take the stand, Drew said, “I wanted him to. And I could hypothesize as to the whys that he didn’t, you know, that he could lose kind of his shield of representation once he goes up there.”

But, he said, Weinstein not taking the stand did not influence the verdict.

“The only thing that influenced mine and our collective decision making was what we had in front of us,” he said.

In their fourth day of deliberations, jurors sent a note to the judge asking if they could be split on some counts, but unanimous on others. Drew explained the jury was simply looking for clarification, but outside the court, he said it was mistaken as a sign that a verdict was imminent. 

“Maybe that’s our fault for the syntax of the note. But I know now that people kind of deduced that maybe he was guilty somewhere along the line, and I’ll tell you, I was sick about it. Because, he’s a human being and he’s going home that night and knowing that he’s walking into court Monday morning and potentially not leaving,” Drew said. “Regardless of what any other human does to any other human, for me to affect another person like that really took a toll on me.”

Asked if he thinks Weinstein should go to jail, Drew said, “That’s not for me to say.”

“I could say that a man of his age and of his current health, general population at Rikers sounds like a pretty dangerous place. That’s really all I can say about that,” he said.

Drew also said the jury was not trying to send any type of message.

“We were there to do a job, to make a decision based on the information that was presented to us, and we have absolutely no stance or voice or opinion as to any type of larger movement,” he said.

Thinking back to the start of the trial, Drew said it was “mind-blowing” to be in the jury.

“What are the chances, you know, that of the people who were subpoenaed for jury duty,” he said. “The happenstance was mind-blowing.”

He said he knew “some” about Weinstein and the case, but “probably not as much as others.” He knew about “Ronan Farrow, The New Yorker, The New York Times, things of that nature,” he said.

Drew told King that a lot of people have asked him how he could be impartial in the trial.
 
“I take absolute pride in my objectivity,” he said. “Judge Burke instructed us, he said, ‘You can know who Harvey Weinstein is and still be impartial,’ and I agree with him 100%.”

Drew said any tension “was not person-to-person” or confrontational.

“This is heavy, heavy stuff, heavy stuff,” he said. “Twelve people, you know, me and 11 strangers, everybody brings their own belief system and everything, inclinations, inspirations, motivations, but … it was our job that was put to us to be impartial and to interpret the law, and to render unanimous verdict in the case.”

Drew described “a rough moment” for him during deliberations.

“I kind of found myself just, you know, I was holding my head,” he said. “And I turned actually to one of the other jurors, and I said, ‘Thanks for being my friend,’ and in retrospect, it’s such a silly thing to say.”

“It was like I had, like, cut myself open and dumped it all out for everybody to see, and instead of judging me for it, they kind of all put me back together again,” he said.

Drew said he suggested to the other jurors that they all take a different seat each day of the deliberations.

“I think it’s a change of perspective, quite literally,” he said. “But also if you sit next to the same person every day, it’s kind of an echo chamber of affirmation.”

They wanted to avoid any type of “groupthink” or “subconscious gestures to one another,” he said, adding that “to just force yourself quite literally out of your comfort zone might also force you to take a more objective approach to what we’re talking about.”

Asked if the male jurors felt differently than the female jurors, Drew said they didn’t.

“There was no gender bias, there was no race bias,” he said.

Drew wouldn’t say if it was difficult for the jury to reach a unanimous decision.

“I understand that people have an interest and a desire to know, but this is how we found on these counts, and I see no upside to kind of pulling back the curtain any further than that,” he said.

Asked if he is comfortable with the decision, he said, “That is an interesting question, and the answer is yes. And to speak to the respect I have for the people in the room, we have to live with these choices.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)