Harvey Weinstein faces #MeToo retrial as imprisoned movie mogul returns to court
Jeenah Moon-Pool/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — The sequel to the biggest victory of the #MeToo era starts Tuesday when disgraced film producer Harvey Weinstein is retried in New York for alleged sex crimes.
It could take five days to seat a jury, Judge Curtis Farber has said.
A jury in the same courthouse convicted Weinstein in 2020 of sex assault before New York’s highest court overturned the conviction, deciding the judge had improperly allowed certain testimony from women whose accusations were not part of the criminal charges.
His attorneys have said they hope a changing political climate could make the outcome of Weinstein’s second New York trial different than the first.
Weinstein, 73, has pleaded not guilty to all charges, including a new allegation from a woman who came forward after his conviction.
One of the women alleged Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her in 2006. A then-aspiring actor alleged she was raped in 2013. The new accuser alleged Weinstein forced oral sex on her in a Manhattan hotel room in 2006.
The defense accused prosecutors of withholding the new accuser’s account as a hedge, but prosecutors denied that, and the judge declined to dismiss the case.
The alleged victims who testify will no longer be referred to as survivors after the judge granted a defense request to call Weinstein’s accusers complaining witnesses. They are expected to testify under their real names.
Farber granted a request from the Manhattan district attorney’s office to call a witness who is an expert on the psychological effects of rape.
The decision to re-try Weinstein fell to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who reconfigured the way his office handles sex crimes. The Special Victims Division has successfully prosecuted a man who raped two young women at knifepoint after responding to their online advertisements for commercial sex, a man who raped a cleaner in the building where he worked as the superintendent and a man who sexually abused two children living in the shelter where he worked.
Weinstein, who has appeared in court in a wheelchair, sued New York City over his treatment and questioned whether he would live through a second trial while incarcerated in the “hellhole” of Rikers Island.
(LOS ANGELES) Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said he’s asked the court to deny the Menendez brothers’ habeas corpus petition, which aims to get a new trial or the case tossed out.
Erik and Lyle Menendez filed the habeas corpus petition in 2023 for a review of new evidence not presented at trial.
Two new pieces of evidence are at the center of the petition.
One is a letter Erik Menendez wrote to his cousin Andy Cano eight months before the murders detailing his alleged abuse from his father. The cousin testified about the alleged abuse at trial, but the letter — which would have corroborated the cousin’s testimony — wasn’t found until several years ago, according to the brothers’ attorney.
The second piece is allegations from a former member of the boy band Menudo, Roy Rossello, who revealed in 2023 that he was raped by the brothers’ father, Jose Menendez.
Hochman explained that the standard for a successful habeas petition has multiple requirements: You must show that it’s new evidence; you must show thats it’s timely and the evidence could not be discovered at the time of the trial; you must show you didn’t engage in a delay by the time you learned of the evidence and brought your motion; the evidence must be credible; and the evidence must be admissible.
Hochman argues the letter to Cano is not credible evidence.
“If this letter truly existed, the defense counsel would have absolutely used it at the trial because it would help corroborate” testimony from Cano and Erik Menendez, Hochman said.
Erik Menendez at his second trial testified for seven days about graphic descriptions of his sexual abuse from ages of 6 to 18 and also talked about the sexual abuse his brother experienced from their father, the district attorney said.
Asked who he disclosed to, Erik Menendez said he told Cano when he was 12 or 13 years old.
Cano — who died in 2003 — testified in the 1990s and relayed that same information: that Erik Menendez mentioned abuse six years before the murders and that was the only communication they had about the sexual abuse, the district attorney said.
That letter was never discussed at either of the two trials, Hochman said.
Erik Menendez claimed he didn’t know about the letter until a 2015 Barbara Walters special published it, but this habeas motion was not filed until 2023, Hochman said.
The defense in this habeas motion argued that to resolve this case jurors had to decide if the brothers were sexually molested by their father — but the jury never had to resolve that question, Hochman said. Instead, the jury had to determine if the brothers conspired to kill their parents, if they killed them, what their state of mind was, and if they did so, if they acted in self-defense, Hochman said.
Hochman said Rossello’s claims fail the admissibility standard for the habeas petition because the brothers didn’t know about Rossello’s allegations until recent years, so it couldn’t have influenced their state of mind during the crime and “couldn’t play a role in self-defense or premeditated murder.”
The brothers were convicted in 1996 of the 1989 murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez.
Lyle and Erik Menendez, who were 21 and 18, respectively, at the time, admitted to gunning down their parents in the family’s Beverly Hills home. The defense claimed the brothers acted in self-defense after enduring years of sexual abuse by their father, but prosecutors alleged they killed for money.
Lyle and Erik Menendez were sentenced to two consecutive life prison terms without the possibility of parole.
Besides the habeas corpus petition, the brothers have been pursuing two other paths to freedom.
One other path is through resentencing, which Hochman said his office will deal with in the coming weeks.
In October, then-LA County District Attorney George Gascón announced that he was recommending the brothers’ sentence of life without the possibility of parole be removed, and they should instead be sentenced for murder, which would be a sentence of 50 years to life. Because both brothers were under 26 at the time of the crimes, they would be eligible for parole immediately with the new sentence.
The DA’s office said its resentencing recommendations take into account many factors, including rehabilitation in prison and abuse or trauma that contributed to the crime. Gascón praised the work Lyle and Erik Menendez did behind bars to rehabilitate themselves and help other inmates.
Weeks after Gascón’s announcement, he lost his race for reelection to Hochman.
Hochman said in January that he was still reviewing the facts of the case and hadn’t yet decided if he’s in support of the brothers’ bid for freedom. He said he was reviewing thousands of pages of confidential prison records, trial transcripts and court filing, as well as speaking to all the prosecutors and defense attorneys involved.
The brothers’ next resentencing hearing is on March 20 and 21.
The third path to freedom is through clemency.
The brothers submitted a request for clemency to California Gov. Gavin Newsom. In November, Newsom said he’d defer to Hochman’s “review and analysis of the Menendez case prior to making any clemency decisions.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Nearly three weeks after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to remove more than 200 alleged migrant gang members to El Salvador with little-to-no due process, a federal judge will consider whether the Trump administration defied his court order by deporting the men.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said at a hearing Thursday that he is contemplating initiating “contempt proceedings” against the government in the event he finds probable cause they deliberately defied his March 15 order that barred removals under the Alien Enemies Act and directed two flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members be returned to the United States.
Boasberg questioned DOJ attorney Drew Ensign over the best way to proceed in the case in the event he determines the government violated his verbal order that the flights be returned to the U.S.
“If I don’t agree, I don’t find your legal arguments convincing, and I believe there is probable cause to find contempt, what I’m asking is how — how should I determine who [is at fault]?” Boasberg asked.
Boasberg repeatedly pressed Ensign for more information on which parties might have been involved in potentially defying his order. Ensign cited various privileges that might apply to the specific information, but when pressed by Boasberg he said he was not prepared to give specific answers.
Judge Boasberg said he would look to issue a ruling sometime next week.
The judge began the hearing by dressing down Ensign after the DOJ lawyer insisted that the Trump administration complied with Boasberg’s court order.
“It seems to me, there is a fair likelihood that that is not correct,” Judge Boasberg said in response to the argument that the Trump administration complied with the order. “In fact, the government acted in bad faith throughout that day. You really believed everything you did that day was legal and could survive a court challenge. I can’t believe you ever would have operated in the way you did.”
When the judge pressed the government about whether his oral directive to turn around the planes was communicated to the officials managing the deportation flights, DOJ attorney Drew Ensign declined to answer, citing attorney-client privilege. Regardless, Judge Boasberg suggested the Trump administration acted irresponsibly and rushed the deportation flights while the lawsuit played out.
“Why wouldn’t the prudent thing be to say, ‘Let’s slow down here. Let’s see what the judge says. He’s already enjoined the removal of five people, certainly in the realm of possibility that he would enjoin further removal. Let’s see what he says, and if he doesn’t enjoy it, we can go ahead. But surely better to be safe and risk violating the order,'” Judge Boasberg said.
Boasberg used his opening line of questioning to ensure Ensign corrected the record amid public attacks by President Trump and other senior members of the administration who have accused him of supporting terrorist gang members or singlehandedly obstructing the administration’s immigration agenda.
Ensign said it was correct to say that Boasberg’s initial temporary restraining order on March 15 never barred the administration from conducting deportations in the normal course of legal proceedings, and also said it would be incorrect to say that Boasberg ever ordered any TdA members in the administration’s custody to be released.
Thursday’s hearing could present the most consequential face-off yet between the executive and judicial branches of government since Trump took office in January, as Trump attempts to unilaterally implement parts of his agenda amid a flood of litigation.
“I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do,” Trump said in a social media post last month after Judge Boasberg issued his order blocking the deportations.
Trump last month invoked the Alien Enemies Act — a wartime authority used to deport noncitizens with little-to-no due process — by arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a “hybrid criminal state” that is invading the United States.
An official with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has acknowledged that “many” of the men lack criminal records in the United States — but said that “the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose” and “demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile.”
Lawyers representing the class of migrants covered by the president’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation have argued that the Trump administration violated the court’s “unequivocal oral order” to return to the U.S. two flights carrying alleged Tren de Aragua gang members to El Salvador.
According to flight data reviewed by ABC News, both flights carrying the migrants had not yet landed when Judge Boasberg directed the flights be turned around, and Justice Department lawyers, when questioned by Judge Boasberg, confirmed that the directive was promptly communicated to federal officials overseeing the flights.
“Defendants admit they never attempted to return the individuals on the planes to the United States, despite having both notice and the ability to do so,” the attorneys argued.
Lawyers with the Department of Justice have insisted that the Trump administration “complied with the law” while questioning the legitimacy of Judge Boasberg’s order. According to the DOJ, Judge Boasberg’s oral instructions directing the flight to be returned were defective, and his subsequent written order lacked the necessary explanation to be enforced.
Lawyers with the ACLU and Democracy Forward Foundation responded that “The government’s arguments are also unsupportable on their own terms — as a matter of basic textual analysis, of common sense, and in view of foundational separation-of-powers principles.”
The Justice Department has also argued that the president acted within his authority when he removed the noncitizens — which the Trump administration has alleged are dangerous gang members — and that the government should not have to explain itself to the court because the matter concerns national security.
“Even without the challenged Proclamation, the President doubtlessly acts within his constitutional prerogative by declining to transport foreign terrorists into the country,” the Justice Department argued.
The Justice Department recently invoked the rarely-used state secrets privilege to avoid disclosing further details about the flights on the grounds that it could harm national security, so it’s unclear how DOJ attorneys will respond to Boasberg’s lines of inquiry.
(NEW YORK) — Columbia University appears to have ceded to the Trump administration’s demands after a threat to withhold $400 million in federal funds.
The school posted a four-page memo entitled “Advancing Our Work to Combat Discrimination, Harassment, and Antisemitism at Columbia.” Columbia’s response is being closely watched by other schools that became flashpoints for pro-Palestinian protests last year.
The Trump administration canceled $400 million worth of grants and contracts to Columbia University, accusing the university of “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” The administration sent a letter last week, listing out nine demands Columbia must comply with by Thursday “as a precondition for formal negotiations” regarding federal funding.
Columbia agreed to ban masks, one of the Trump administration’s key demands, saying in the memo, “Public safety has determined that face masks or face coverings are not allowed for the purpose of concealing one’s identity in the commission of violations of University policies or state, municipal, or federal laws.”
The university also agreed to stricter controls over its Middle East Studies department, which will now be overseen by a new senior vice provost who “will conduct a thorough review of the portfolio of programs in regional areas across the University, starting immediately with the Middle East.”
Columbia’s Board of Trustees issued a statement supporting the move on Saturday.
“We have and continue to support Interim President Armstrong’s approach, including today’s presentation of the University’s progress and deeply thoughtful actions. We are grateful for her principled and courageous leadership during this unprecedented time, and for the steps she has and is taking to strengthen our institution,” the Board of Trustees said.
“There are many, inside and outside of our community, who are wondering about and characterizing our decision to hold discussions with the federal government. We engaged with the agencies that serve as our regulators on issues that matter both to them and to us. Our goal has been to demonstrate the significant advances we’ve made, discuss the plans for the months ahead, and present Columbia-driven decisions made in accordance with our values and our mission,” the board said.
The memo promised the new senior vice provost would make sure the curriculum is “comprehensive and balanced” and the faculty represent an “intellectually diverse academic environment” as the Trump administration tries to crackdown on left-wing ideology on campus.
The university will also establish a Provostial Advisory Committee on Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression tasked with advising university leadership on how to protect academic freedom at Columbia.
“The committee members will serve as trusted advisors, both to consult on university policies and procedures and to ensure that our decisions are consistent with our values,” Columbia said in the memo.
Columbia will also establish a commission tasked with examining events on campus since Oct. 7, 2024 — the anniversary of the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war — and “present an analysis with the underlying causes.” The committee will create a report with recommendations to ensure members of the Columbia community “are held accountable for actions that hinder the academic pursuit of any individual within the community.”
The committee will also offer recommendations for a disciplinary process.
