Harvey Weinstein Convicted on Two Counts: Has Justice Been Served or Did Prosecutors Bend the Rules Again?

Harvey Weinstein

Harvey Weinstein, the 67-old former Hollywood movie producer, was found guilty today of two of the five criminal counts he was facing in New York Supreme Court.

He was found guilty of criminal sexual assault in the first degree for performing oral sex on Miriam “Mimi” Haleyi, a former Production Assistant on “Project Runway” – and one count of rape in the third degree for the rape of hairstylist Jessica Mann.

Harvey Weinstein (Courtesy: Stephanie Keith Getty Images)

The first-degree sexual assault charge carries a minimum sentence of 5-years and a maximum sentence of 25-years while the third-degree rape charge carries a maximum sentence of four years.

In all, Weinstein had been facing five criminal counts:

Count One: Predatory sexual assault – which involves sex crimes against at least two victims, in this case relating to former Project Runway production assistant Miriam Haley and former Sopranos actor Annabella Sciorra. The charge carries a maximum sentence life in prison and a minimum sentence of 10 years.

Count Two: Criminal sex act in the first degree for forcing oral sex on Miriam Haley – which carries a maximum sentence 25 years and a minimum sentence 5 years.

Count Three: In this count relating to a woman who was not named and Annabella Sciorra – which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a minimum sentence of 10 years.

Count Four: First-degree rape of an unnamed victim – which carries a maximum sentence of 25 years and a minimum sentence of five years.

Count Five: Third-degree rape of an unnamed victim – which carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison and no minimum, though a conviction would require Weinstein to register as a sex offender.


Several Troubling Aspects Regarding the Verdicts in Raniere’s Case

While I believe that Harvey Weinstein has very likely committed numerous criminal acts over the years, I am troubled by several aspects of today’s decision.

In many respects, it’s the same sort of mixed feelings I had when the jury convicted Keith Raniere on all seven counts he was facing.

Basically, I’m perfectly OK with the outcomes in the two cases because I think that Raniere and Weinstein both deserve to be incarcerated for long periods of time.

But I’m a lot less OK with the process that led to their convictions.

In Raniere’s case, I’m still not entirely comfortable with him being found guilty of Sex Trafficking (Count Eight), Conspiracy to Commit Sex Trafficking (Count Nine), and Attempted Sex Trafficking (Count Ten).

Keith Raniere

That’s because I’m not entirely sure that his misdeeds regarding Jane Doe 5, Jane Doe 8 and Jane Doe 7 were the types of actions that the applicable statutes were meant to cover (I’m sure that argument will be part of his inevitable appeal).

But I am 100% comfortable with the possibility that Raniere may be sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison.

In reality, Raniere was charged with – and convicted of – only a small percentage of the crimes he actually committed.  Which means that life imprisonment is likely what he deserves.

But I would have much preferred that he was charged with – and convicted of – all those other crimes.


Also Some Troubling Aspects Regarding the Verdicts in Harvey Weinstein’s Case

There are also some aspects of Weinstein’s case that I find troubling.

First and foremost, I don’t like the fact that the prosecution was allowed to present testimony from 28 women who claimed to have abused by Weinstein when, in fact, only three of them were involved in the actual charges Weinstein was facing.

And I’m bothered that two of the alleged victims whose allegations led to Weinstein’s convictions also admitted that they had consensual sex with him after his alleged attacks on them.

Harvey Weinstein

Both of them also admitted that they continued to send him affectionate emails after the alleged attacks – and to accept gifts from him such as tickets to movie premieres and invitations to Oscar parties.

I get the fact that each sexual encounter between a man and a woman requires mutual consent – and that consent to a prior sexual encounter does not automatically apply to any future situations.

I just wish that the prosecution had been able to produce more witnesses whose stories were not so complicated – and who avoided Weinstein like the coronavirus after he first assaulted them. And I wish that the prosecution did not call one witness (Jessica Mann) who, upon cross-examination, admitted that she previously referred to Weinstein as her “spiritual soulmate” and who admitted she had told a friend that Weinstein gave her the best orgasm she ever had.

I’m also bothered by the fact that the prosecution was allowed to call three witnesses – model Lauren Young, waitress Tarale Wulff and aspiring actress Dawn Dunning – to testify about similar alleged misconduct that was not part of any of the charges Weinstein had been facing.

Once again, I get the fact that such testimony can be helpful in establishing a pattern of criminal conduct – which, in this case, was actually a pattern of predatory behavior.

But I’d much prefer to have that sort of testimony be part of the evidence that the judge hears before handing down a sentence on a convicted defendant rather than have it be part of the deliberations regarding a defendant’s guilt or innocence.


Weinstein Facing More Charges in California – But Already Imprisoned

Just prior to the start of the New York State trial, Weinstein was indicted on four counts of rape and sexual battery in Los Angeles, CA.

Those charges stem from allegations from two women who claim that Weinstein attacked them while they were staying in hotels in Los Angels and Beverly Hills back in 2013.

It is unclear when the trial regarding the California charges will take place. Depending on the sentence that is handed down in the New York State case, it’s even possible that the California charges will never be prosecuted.

Weinstein was immediately handcuffed and taken away after the guilty verdicts were announced (He had been allowed to remain free via a bail bond following his arraignment in New York City).

He is currently scheduled to be sentenced on March 11th – a date that seems almost impossible given the delays that have taken place with respect to the sentencing of all six defendants in the NXIVM case.

But just like it did for Keith Raniere, the concept of “time” has suddenly changed for Harvey Weinstein.

And for both of them, it will never be the same.

About the author

K.R. Claviger


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • I agree that there are some things about the prosecution that are troubling.

    On the other hand, perpetrators like Weinstein, Raniere, Epstein, and in a broader case Scientology and its leader David Miscavige, have gotten away with abusing people and breaking the law for decades, precisely because they have figured out how to victimize people in ways that are hard to prosecute – often with the assistance of top-notch attorneys who seem sort of like the modern version of mob lawyers. They deliberately set things up so that issues of consent are blurred, and also so that various sorts of after-the-fact implications of consent – ongoing communications, monetary settlements, etc. – may appear to have occurred.

    I don’t think there are easy answers, but I think we do need to find a way to prosecute crimes such as these that skirt the line – and one of the key indicators of that is when they turn out to have been a consistent pattern of behavior or even calculation over time, and not possibly just a one-time confusion or misunderstanding.

    As I’ve noted previously, we also have to keep in mind that victims of assault may be experiencing PTSD, and those suffering from trauma may act in ways that seem counter-intuitive to laymen – research bears that out. The classic example of that is ongoing contact with a perpetrator, which is not what those of us with no experience of such things would expect, and yet turns out to be surprisingly common. The following research demonstrates how common that actually is – and yet at the end also turns up something that surprised even the researchers:

    Predictors of victim-perpetrator relationship stability following a sexual assault: a brief report.
    Edwards KM1, Kearns MC, Gidycz CA, Calhoun KS.
    Author information

    The researchers assessed the predictors of victim-perpetrator relationship stability following a sexual assault. Participants included 254 women sexually assaulted by a friend, casual dating partner, or steady dating partner. Results suggested that most victim-perpetrator relationships (75%) continued following the sexual assault. Greater trauma symptomatology, less perpetrator blame, and nondisclosure of the assault by victims predicted relationship continuation with the perpetrator. Additionally, the odds of continuing the relationship were greater following acts of sexual coercion than following acts of completed rape. Close relationships (steady dating partner) were more likely to continue following the sexual assault than less close relationships (friends and casual dating partners). Unexpectedly, the odds of relationship stability were greater for women without histories of childhood sexual abuse than women with histories of childhood sexual abuse. Implications for future research and intervention are discussed.


    • I’m 100% in favor of prosecuting people like Weinstein, Raniere, Epstein, Ray, Cosby, etc., etc.. etc. I’m just bothered by some of the tactics that prosecutors use when they undertake such cases.

      Maybe we need to amend some of our existing statutes so that they cover the kinds of activities these guys engage in – or that they include appropriate sentences for those activities. That’s certainly better than allowing prosecutors to continue labeling things as “sex trafficking” that really aren’t – and/or allowing them to utilize testimony from non-victims of the defendant just to ensure a conviction.

      In my mind, both Raniere and Weinstein deserve to be – and likely will be – imprisoned for at least 25 years. I just wish we could have achieved those outcomes differently.

  • K.R.Claviger,

    As always, excellent article!

    Weinstein was convicted in the court of popular opinion. I believe he is guilty of some of the sexual assaults and rapes, but I also believe many individuals were on board with Weinstein and looking to get ahead; case in point is Weinstein’s wife. She is beyond beautiful and Weinstein looks like one of my Sunday morning turds after a night of heavy drinking.

    Another example of a Kangaroo case was OJ Simpson’s conviction in the court of popular opinion in 2008. What transpired and what OJ Simpson was charged with were 2 different things and abstract absurd ……But when everyone agrees you killed your wife, that’s what happens. 😉

    • You actually think OJ is innocent?

      Weinstein is definitely a sexual predator, and I have read some of his victims accounts that sounded very credible. However, some of the victims were opportunistic, which was something he took advantage of.

  • Both Raniere and Weinstein are very unsympathetic characters. They both had plenty of money to pay the best lawyers that money can buy. For those reasons I’m okay with the outcomes of their trials. Trials are crap-shoots, one of many reasons why defendants often take deals.

  • KAR used brainwashing techniques to get his victims. A long, slow process at that.

    Weinstein was pure quid pro quo. You want the job bad enough, do me.

    The latter ringing of prostitution in a way, for the industry at large, with exceptions.

  • I think when one writes about a case it is always helpful to get the Court right! And when one criticizes the Department of Justice it is always helpful if the case was prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Oops!

  • Even Meryl Streep has abandoned Harvey Weinstein after years of sticking up for him.

    The DOJ is also moving towards use of the RICO (Racketeering) law to dismantle criminal enterprises and take the profits out of criminal conspiracies.
    The EDNY (Brooklyn) has filed a RICO Conspiracy indictment against the Chinese Telecom giant Huawei.
    Huawei Charged with RICO Violations in Federal Court
    Thursday, February 13, 2020
    Chinese Telecommunications Conglomerate Huawei and Subsidiaries Charged in Racketeering Conspiracy and Conspiracy to Steal Trade Secrets
    Charges also Reveal Huawei’s Business in North Korea and Assistance to the Government of Iran in Performing Domestic Surveillance

    The Trump Administration not only intends to keep Huawei out of the US cell phone system but also intends to seize the assets of Huawei, the world’s largest cellphone technology company.

    RICO is literally being used as a weapon of war by the Trump Administration against China.

    And the US government intends to seize the estimated 12 billion dollars the Mexican drug trafficker El Chapo made from the US Drug Trade.

    ” U.S. demands $12.7 billion in judgment against ‘El Chapo’
    Brendan Pierson
    3 MIN READ

    NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. authorities said on Friday they were seeking a court order requiring Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman to forfeit $12.7 billion following his conviction for racketeering and drug trafficking crimes earlier this year.

    And the recent charges against the pedophile singer R. Kelly include RICO.
    The US government claims that R. Kelly’s whole music career was a front to facilitate his sexual exploitation of minors.

    “R. Kelly” Charged with Racketeering, Including Predicate Acts of Coercing and Transporting Minor Girls to Engage in Sex
    Charged Conduct Occurred Over the Course of Two Decades in New York, Connecticut, Illinois and California

    And if one reads the recent complaint filed by Attorney Neil Glazer, it is clear that the US government and Glazer cooperated closely in the investigation and lining up potential plaintiffs to sue the Gangsters of NXIVM for RICO violations.

    • Could you clarify what you mean by “close cooperation” between the US government and Neil Glazer in “lining up potential plaintiffs to sue the Gangsters of NXIVM”.

      Are you saying that the best Glazer and the US government could come up with as civil plaintiffs are (the arguably culpable and liable) Canadian citizen Sarah Edmondson and the (arguably unstable) Toni Natalie? The former apparently needs to milk her connection to NXIVM for every last dollar; the latter probably wants money and attention.

      Edmondson is telegenic but not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Photographs of Natalie are more terrifying than MK10’s drawings of her.

      So Shadow, could you elaborate on your allegation of US DOJ/ Glazer collaboration?
      Did you mean to say that Glazer carefully reviewed the criminal complaint against Raniere et. al?

      Your comments on the law are nowhere near as cogent as your reports resulting from your close scrutiny of the social media accounts of B minus actresses, which you seem to have a good deal of experience with.

      • Are you sober enough to read this passage from the complaint filed by Neil Glazer?

        “Numerous Plaintiffs suffered in silence for years, even avoiding cooperation with
        law enforcement authorities once it became known that the federal government was investigating
        Defendants. Only now, after the guilty pleas and convictions of a number of the Defendants, do
        Plaintiffs feel safe enough to come forward and assert their claims. So great was the fear
        generated by Defendants, that Plaintiffs believe there are still many victims and witnesses hiding
        in the shadows, frightened at the prospect of seeing their lives further destroyed if they
        come forward and assert their rightful claims in this or any other legal proceeding.”


        Pages 11 and 12

        All Them Witches, you are actually Dumber than Scott Johnson.

        • This doesn’t come close to proving Glazer and the DOJ were cooperating, it doesn’t even address the topic. LOL

          But thanks for being consistent in going off-topic. LOL

          Mr. Shadow, you are actually Dumber than NiceGuy. Or is it the other way around? It depends on which day of the week it is, and I’ve lost track of whose turn it is. LOL

        • Being called dumb by you is quite a compliment, seeing as from where I sit you are wrong about 95% of the time. Dumb would be spending my dotage OBSESSING over B- actresses and living in a fantasy world where I believe that my poorly written scattershot contributions to the Frank Report are helping to bring down the “NXIVM gangsters”.

          Anyone can pull passages from Mr. Glazer’s complaint, but even after reading the passage you have cited (3 times) I do not see how it establishes any collaboration between Glazer and the DOJ. You also have not replied to my question as to why Glazer (in cahoots w/DOJ?) chose Edmondson and Nutalie as plaintiffs.

          I guess I am pretty dumb to expect a reasonable response from someone who spends most of his day glued to the Frank Report and OBSESSING over the minutiae of the Instagram accounts of B- actresses.

          Again I will ask please give me evidence of close cooperation between DOJ and Glazer.

  • For those who don’t know what Claviger is REALLY saying:

    1) Claviger thinks these women were all opportunistic sluts who continued fornicating with Harvey even after the alleged ‘rape’ due to the expectation of career benefits. Thus, how can we trust these women when they claim they were raped?

    I happen to agree with him.

    2) Claviger thinks that some of these women are not only sluts who wanted it, but also outright liars —— since at least one of them referenced having ‘the best orgasm ever’ from Harvey. Therefore, if the jury buys her ‘rape’ testimony (due to society’s pressure to never disbelieve a female), then the US court system may eventually turn into a Kangaroo court.

    I agree with him again. Since ‘up’ cannot mean ‘down’. Black cannot mean white. Water cannot mean sand. Having the best orgasm EVER cannot mean he’s a rapist.

    3) Claviger is troubled that too many disgruntled/scorned women were allowed to tell their stories in court simply because they had once fucked Harvey in the past, even though they weren’t a part of the indictments. Thus, he’s troubled that his future clients may not fare very well if judges allow every gal who’s ever fucked a guy to testify against him in court.

    I happen to agree with Claviger. Disgruntled/scorned women have an incentive to lie about things in the distant past. Thus, only actual victims of the crimes being charged should be allowed to testify.

    4) As a defense attorney, Claviger considers trials to be a ‘game’. Thus, this game should have rules set up to favor the defendant just as our founding fathers agreed. In Claviger’s mind, it’s better to acquit 10 guilty rapists than it is to convict a single innocent man.

    I happen to agree with him.

    Truth is, Claviger is correct on all counts.

    Most of these gals fucked Harvey as a ‘transaction’ to better their careers.

    After all, why didn’t these same women get fucked by the local fatboy serving sandwiches at their local deli? I’m sure those losers made more attempts to pick them up than Harvey ever did.

    Is that just a coincidence?

    They obviously wanted to be with Harvey and injected themselves into his life.

    Harvey is a fat old bastard with tons of money, thus a single ‘scream’ or ‘no’ would have gotten him to stop immediately (but would also have negatively impacted their careers).

    In other words, these women secretly didn’t want to have sex with Harvey but failed to have the courage to tell him —- but since he can’t read their minds, it’s hardly considered rape. Communication is important.

    Thus, these women now ‘regret’ having made bad career decisions (i.e., the decision to fuck a fatman for career advancement). But that’s not necessarily what rape laws were designed to punish.

    Claviger is therefore REDEEMED in recognizing these facts.

    I support Claivger’s interpretation here. I’m okay with Harvey being convicted cuz he’s an asshole and deserves jail IMO.

    But the ‘process’ here is very concerning —– because it will eventually lead to a Kangaroo court system.

    Who will stand with me and give accolades to Claviger?

    • I’m not going to give either one of you accolades, both of you have written so many stupid anonymous things that you’re bound to get a story right eventually. LOL

      Here’s the real deal: Weinstein is just a man behind the times. The casting couch has been a Hollyweird staple for several decades. Plus, if he wasn’t so ugly the women may not have ever complained, or at least not enough to cause the uproar that occurred. That’s Raniere’s NXIVM perverse thinking, and only because Raniere is perverse and a similar perverse part of society is acting similar to Raniere’s ideas, you’re right! LOL

      Both men had long-term power over women, although that power was not anywhere near the same. A major similarity is Weinstein and Raniere were ell-known their “communities” (NXIVM and high-level DEMOCRAT politicians and the movie scene) for their actions, but nobody did much of anything for decades, which allowed them to abuse more people. All of those early victims can blame themselves for the subsequent Raniere and Weinstein rape victims.

      • Dearest “Anonymous”,
        For your psychological well being, you need to recommence having sex with your mother! As the psychiatric team treating your parents has already stipulated over the past two decades, you and your mother are inextricably linked to the time you will see her coffin off to its resting place!
        Kind regards!

    • “In other words, these women secretly didn’t want to have sex with Harvey but failed to have the courage to tell him —- but since he can’t read their minds, it’s hardly considered rape. Communication is important.”

      OF COURSE….if women just had the “courage” to say “no” to their rapists there would be no rape!

      • There is a difference between sexual manipulation and forcible rape, and I think Weinstein was guilty of both.

        Probably many of his crimes were not reported immediately, as the women were afraid they would not be believed. Hopefully attitudes have changed now.

        • Flowers
          “There is a difference between sexual manipulation and forcible rape.”

          Fortunately, neither has happened to you and never will!

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” In addition, he was credited in the Starz docuseries 'Seduced' for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premieres on May 22, 2022.

IMDb — Frank Parlato


Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com