I deserve justice, which is why I stand up and face unbearable public scrutiny
For the third time, a Manhattan jury has been unable to reach a unanimous verdict in the rape case against Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced film mogul whose downfall helped ignite a global reckoning with sexual power and silence. The law, designed to demand certainty before condemning, has instead produced repeated impasse — leaving unresolved the question of whether justice, in its formal sense, will ever be rendered. At the center of this prolonged legal ordeal stands Jessica Mann, who has told her story in three separate courtrooms, embodying both the courage and the cost that accountability so often demands of those who seek it.
- A nine-to-three split among jurors — leaning heavily toward acquittal — made unanimity impossible, forcing Judge Curtis Farber to declare the jury hopelessly deadlocked after three days.
- This is the third consecutive failure to reach a verdict in New York, a streak rooted in a 2024 appeals court ruling that threw out Weinstein's original 2020 conviction on procedural grounds.
- Jessica Mann has now endured three public trials recounting the same alleged assault, her statement after the mistrial insisting that legal deadlock does not diminish the truth she has carried.
- Weinstein's defense team is pressing the district attorney to abandon further prosecution, arguing that social pressure has made a fair verdict structurally impossible for some jurors.
- Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has pledged to consult with Mann before deciding whether to pursue a fourth trial, while Weinstein awaits separate sentencing on a California sexual assault conviction.
For the third time, a Manhattan jury has deadlocked on whether Harvey Weinstein is guilty of rape, and for the third time, a judge has sent jurors home without a verdict. Judge Curtis Farber declared the jury hopelessly divided after three days of deliberation — nine members favoring acquittal, three seeking conviction — and Weinstein, seventy-four and seated in a wheelchair, was wheeled from the courtroom without visible reaction.
The case rested on the testimony of Jessica Mann, an aspiring actress who says Weinstein forced her to have sex in a hotel room in March 2013. Weinstein's lawyers argued the encounter was consensual. Mann has now told that story in three separate trials — a testament, she says, to its truth. "The mistrial doesn't in any way detract from the truth I told," she said afterward. "I deserve justice, which is why I stand up and face unbearable public scrutiny in the name of a greater good."
The legal saga stretches back years. Weinstein's original 2020 conviction was overturned in 2024 when an appeals court ruled the trial was tainted by testimony from women whose allegations fell outside the formal charges. A second trial last year ended in another deadlock on the rape count. Now a third has done the same.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said his office will consult with Mann and weigh Weinstein's pending sentencing in a separate California sexual assault case before deciding whether to pursue a fourth trial. Weinstein's legal team urged the DA to stop, arguing that for some jurors, the weight of public sentiment had made a fair verdict impossible.
Once among Hollywood's most powerful figures — a co-founder of Miramax, the studio behind films like Pulp Fiction and Shakespeare in Love — Weinstein now faces the likelihood of spending the rest of his life incarcerated. A California conviction already stands against him, civil settlements have cost him nineteen million dollars, and a diagnosis of bone marrow cancer arrived in 2024. Whether New York will attempt a fourth trial, or whether three deadlocked juries mark the end of that pursuit, remains an open and consequential question.
For the third time, a jury in Manhattan has been unable to agree on whether Harvey Weinstein is guilty of rape. On Friday, after three days of deliberation, the twelve jurors told the judge they could not reach unanimity. Judge Curtis Farber, finding them hopelessly deadlocked, declared a mistrial and sent them home. Weinstein, seventy-four years old and seated in a wheelchair, showed no reaction as court officers wheeled him from the room.
The case centered on Jessica Mann, an aspiring actress who testified that Weinstein forced her to have sex in a hotel room in March 2013, despite her repeated refusals. Weinstein's lawyers maintained the encounter was consensual. Mann has now testified about this alleged assault three times—in the original 2020 trial, in a second trial last year, and in this one. According to one juror who spoke to reporters, nine of the twelve wanted to acquit Weinstein while three wanted to convict him. That three-to-nine split made a unanimous verdict impossible.
This mistrial is the latest chapter in a legal saga that has stretched across years. In 2024, an appeals court overturned Weinstein's 2020 conviction, ruling that the original trial was unfair because the judge had allowed testimony from women making allegations beyond those in the charges themselves. Weinstein was then indicted on new sexual assault charges. A second trial followed last year, but that jury also deadlocked on the rape count, forcing another mistrial. Now, after a third trial and a third deadlock, prosecutors must decide whether to try again.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said his office is determining next steps in consultation with Mann and in light of Weinstein's pending sentencing in a separate sexual assault case in California. "While we are disappointed that the proceedings ended with a mistrial, we deeply respect the jury system," Bragg said. He pledged to continue prosecuting sexual violence crimes in a survivor-centered manner.
Weinstein's legal team framed the mistrial as evidence of prejudice. "For some people, regardless of the evidence presented, saying 'not guilty' has become emotionally or socially impossible," his lawyers argued. They called on the district attorney to stop retrying the case and redirect resources to other crimes affecting New Yorkers.
Mann responded with a statement of her own. "The mistrial doesn't in any way detract from the truth I told," she said. "I chose to testify in three trials because I am telling the truth. I deserve justice, which is why I stand up and face unbearable public scrutiny in the name of a greater good." Her decision to come forward, along with more than one hundred other women who have accused Weinstein of sexual misconduct since October 2017, helped catalyze the #MeToo movement.
Weinstein's fall from power has been complete. Once a titan of Hollywood—he and his brother Bob co-founded Miramax, the studio behind Shakespeare in Love and Pulp Fiction—he now faces the likelihood of spending the rest of his life in prison. A California conviction for sexual assault is already on his record. He has also settled civil lawsuits for nineteen million dollars. In 2024, he was diagnosed with bone marrow cancer. The question now is whether prosecutors will mount a fourth trial, or whether the three deadlocked juries will mark the end of New York's attempts to convict him on rape charges.
Notable Quotes
The mistrial doesn't in any way detract from the truth I told. I chose to testify in three trials because I am telling the truth.— Jessica Mann, accuser
For some people, regardless of the evidence presented, saying 'not guilty' has become emotionally or socially impossible.— Weinstein's legal team
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does a jury deadlock three times on the same case? Doesn't that suggest something about the evidence itself?
It could. Or it could mean the evidence is genuinely contested—strong enough to convince some jurors, not enough to convince others. Nine wanted acquittal, three wanted conviction. That's not a jury saying the case is weak. It's a jury split.
But Mann testified three times. She told the same story each time. Why would that matter less on the third telling?
Because jurors aren't machines. They hear the same words differently depending on what they already believe, what they've read, who they are. Weinstein's lawyers argue that his name itself has become toxic—that people can't hear the evidence fairly anymore because of everything that's happened since 2017.
Is that a fair argument?
It's an argument. Whether it's fair depends on whether you think a person can be so damaged by public perception that they can't get a fair trial. Mann would say the opposite—that she's telling the truth and deserves to be believed, regardless of how many times she has to say it.
What happens now?
The prosecutor has to decide. Try again, or stop. Mann gets a say in that decision. And Weinstein is already facing sentencing in California on a separate conviction. He's seventy-four and has cancer. Time is a factor.
So this might be the end.
It might be. Or it might be the beginning of a fourth trial. The law allows for it. Whether anyone has the will to do it is another question.