Major sources at the State Supreme Court House in Manhattan have rumored the jury has deadlocked at 8 for acquittal. The judge has urged the jury to reconvene, work out their differences to avoid a mistrial. Acquittal or mistrial, Harvey Weinstein walks. Trial by media fails, along with the Me Too movement. Expect accusations of a fix, cowardice, and so forth in the media, echoed by protests. But Harvey walks away with his walker, free. Dumps the California case as expected low hanging fruit, right in the trash. He won't even need to make a personal appearance in the California courts.
It is difficult to get a rape conviction when both complainants maintained relationships, long after the supposed rapes, with the accused. One even claiming, in writing, he gave her the best orgasms of her life. Regretted sex acts are not rape.
I do not know if Mr. Weinstein is innocent or guilty of the alleged acts.
However, I accept the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law.
In this Forum we have people who have determined his guilt solely based on the allegations as reported in the Media. The same is true of much of the Public at large.
But
that is the problem with the Court of Public Opinion.
The media smears, the public hears, then reacts with condemnation and jeers...all on
the presumption of guilty until proven innocent.
As I pointed out in a blog, the job of a Defense Attorney is not to prove their client innocent. That presumption already exists; at least in OUR Courts of Law.
The job is to show reasonable doubt.
Why? Whether it be Blackstone's Ratio ("It is better that 10 go free rather than one innocent suffer"), or Ben Franklin's "Better 100 guilty go free than one innocent person should suffer," the ideal is the same.
That based on a principle of required proof, such that no innocent person need be subjected to imprisonment or death.
My favorite movie is "12 Angry Men." It demonstrates both the basic expectations of evidentiary review one would hope to see in a jury deliberation, and the importance of keeping in mind the decision being made is life-changing. Thus the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
So if this story turns out to be true (the OP provided no links) I applaud the Jury, and the defense that has led to this situation.
But in the spirit of "12 Angry Men," I would agree with the Judge insisting that the Jury continue to see if they can hash out a final decision.