A Hung Jury: The Harvey Weinstein Case and Jury Instructions

After the attempted impeachment of President Trump, America's eyes turned to a new trial: The Harvey Weinstein trial. In 2018, Harvey Weinstein was arrested and charged with rape, sexual assault, and various other sexual misconduct.  The famous movie producer is accused of taking advantage of numerous women and is currently sitting trial in New York.  The trial began on January 6, 2020, and on February 18, 2020, the jury was finally able to begin their deliberations.

Weinstein faces five separate counts of various sex crimes.  These counts carry hefty penalties that could land Weinstein in prison until his early 90s.  There is no doubt that the jury has some difficult decisions to make, and it appears that these difficult decisions have caused the jury to become deadlocked on two of the counts. 

On February 21, three days after deliberations began, the jury sent a note out to the judge explaining that they had reached a partial verdict and were hung on two counts of predatory sexual assault.  The defence was willing to accept the partial verdict, but the prosecution was not, so the judge sent back a simple instruction informing the jury that they should continue to deliberate until they reach a unanimous verdict on all the charges.  If the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict on all the charges, a new trial will have to be scheduled and a new jury will have to be selected, essentially starting the process over.

While this case weighs heavy on the minds of the American public, I believe a separate issue was brought up because of the hung jury in this case.  The instructions to the jury add new pressure to a jury that is already having to make difficult decisions with the American Public closely watching.  The letter to the jury threatens a new trial. A new trial means that a new jury must be selected, witnesses must take the stand and recount their horrifying stories once again, and a verdict must be reached.  After so much media coverage of this trial, the question of whether a fair and impartial jury could be had anywhere could likely become an issue.  But even more so, one problem that sticks out in my mind is the instructions to the jury by the judge.  By no fault of their own, judges are limited in what they can say in response to questions from the jury during their deliberations.  The responses are usually a simple instruction to follow the instructions that were given to them before deliberations began.  In my experience, an instruction to the jury often does not address the question asked and is a scripted response to any and all questions that may leave the deliberations room.  It appears that the instruction given to the Weinstein Jury is no different.  The instruction appears to put more pressure on the Jury, and it a likely that deliberations will continue for a couple more days once they resume on Monday.