NEW YORK — During Harvey Weinstein’s retrial for sexual assault, both the prosecution and defense painted starkly contrasting pictures of the man once regarded as a titan of the film world. In closing arguments that took place on Tuesday and were to wrap up on Wednesday, the former movie mogul was alternately portrayed as a predatory figure who targeted vulnerable women and, as his defense lawyer argued, as a wrongly accused figurehead of the #MeToo movement.
Weinstein’s attorney, Arthur Aidala, characterized the incidences as part of a “courting game” rather than a violation of the law, aiming to provoke sympathy through a combination of humor and theatrical reenactment. Aidala dismissed the allegations as consensual encounters for mutual benefit while claiming that the prosecution was overextending in trying to “police the bedroom.” He painted his client as a misunderstood participant in consensual, albeit “transactional,” exchanges rather than a criminal.
On the other hand, prosecutor Nicole Blumberg asked the jury to focus on the harrowing testimonies of the women who accused Weinstein, highlighting how his accusers withstood days of grueling examination. She dismissed Aidala’s claims, stating categorically that these were not instances of mutual flirting or consensual transactions but acts of rape. Blumberg asserted that Weinstein exploited his power, interpreting any rejection as an incentive to persist, coercing women into silence by dangling the prospect of professional advancement.
The predominantly female jury is set to begin deliberations soon. The case represents a significant juncture in the #MeToo campaign, reignited due to an appeals court overturning Weinstein’s previous conviction from 2020. Weinstein, who has denied any guilt, faces accusations related to raping a woman in 2013 and engaging in non-consensual oral sex with two others in 2006.
As the defense claimed that the professional dynamics were consensual, transactional exchanges, Aidala argued that the prosecution only strengthened their narrative by casting Weinstein as the “poster boy” of #MeToo allegations. His summation, colored with personal anecdotes and touches of levity, seemed designed to garner empathy for Weinstein while portraying the accusers as manipulators who continued their associations with him for personal gain. Each of them had received settlements through channels separate from the criminal proceedings.
Blumberg, however, emphasized that these women maintained contact with Weinstein to avoid jeopardizing their careers, fearing the repercussions of opposing someone of his influence. She argued that the former producer deliberately chose victims he believed would remain silent.
With a celebrated career spanning decades in Hollywood, Weinstein’s downfall began in 2017 when numerous allegations emerged, propelling the #MeToo movement to the forefront of public consciousness. He has since been convicted of sex crimes and sentenced in both New York and California, although his appeal in California is still pending.
The retrial, which began on April 23, was underscored by the prosecutions’ effort to bring forward over twenty witnesses. The testimonies of Weinstein’s accusers formed the backbone of the prosecution’s argument. Each accuser shared graphic, emotional accounts of how Weinstein exploited his esteemed position to coerce and assault them as they pursued their own careers in entertainment.
Among the accusers was Jessica Mann, a hairstylist with aspirations in acting who accused Weinstein of rape. Others included Miriam Haley, who worked as a production assistant, and Kaja Sokola, a teenager at the time, hoping to transition from modeling into acting. Although Sokola’s testimonies were added to the retrial, other testimonies from the first trial were excluded due to an appeals ruling deeming them overly prejudicial.
Opting not to testify on his behalf, Weinstein’s defense leaned heavily on cross-examination to challenge the accusers’ narratives. Though the defense only called a few witnesses, they strategically sought to erode the credibility of the prosecution’s case, unexpectedly invoking Sokola’s personal journal during arguments.
The case’s outcome bears significant weight in the broader context of the #MeToo movement, drawing attention to the dynamics of power and accountability in the world of Hollywood and beyond.