You’ve almost certainly heard the name Harvey Weinstein — if less for the Oscar campaigns the movie mogul masterminded than for the wave of sex crimes allegations that helped launch the #MeToo movement. His fall from power has been followed by years of criminal proceedings in Manhattan, including repeated trials over a single allegation: that he raped aspiring actor Jessica Mann in a hotel room in 2013.
So why can’t this one case reach a verdict — and what does that say about the limits of criminal procedure?
What Exactly Is a Mistrial?
A mistrial is basically a do‑over button a trial judge can press when something has gone wrong in a way that makes it impossible to get a valid verdict or fair trial. “Wrong” here doesn’t mean the jury is having a hard time or the evidence is complicated; it means something more fundamental has broken down. This could be a jury that just can’t reach a unanimous decision after a reasonable amount of deliberating, a serious error or misconduct that has tainted the trial, or a juror becoming unable to continue when there’s no alternate left.
New York gives trial judges a lot of discretion to call a mistrial in those situations, but they’re supposed to try lighter‑touch options first. That can mean rereading the law or reminding jurors of their duty to deliberate. It can also mean giving what’s known as an “Allen charge”: a nudge to keep talking and really consider each other’s views without bullying anyone into changing an honest belief.
Round One: Appeal Wipes Out Verdict
Weinstein’s first New York sex crimes trial, in 2020, ended in a conviction for third‑degree rape of Jessica Mann and a criminal sexual act against another accuser, former Project Runway production assistant Miriam Haley (“Mimi”). Later, New York’s highest court threw that conviction out, ruling that the trial judge had allowed too much “prior bad acts” evidence and turned the case into a referendum on Weinstein’s character rather than the specific charges.
The court ordered a new trial on Mann’s allegation. In other words, the first trial wasn’t technically a “mistrial”; it was later overturned by the state’s highest court. Click here to read our article from last year that dives deeper into that decision.
Round Two: Mixed Verdict, Hung on Mann
The 2025 retrial in Manhattan was broader but more structurally conventional. Prosecutors tried three complainants at once: Mann (the 2013 hotel‑room rape), Mimi Haley, and Kaja Sokola. After weeks of testimony and five days of deliberations, the jury came back with a partial verdict: guilty on a first‑degree criminal sexual act against Haley, not guilty on a similar charge involving Sokola, and no verdict on the rape charge involving Mann.
Inside the jury room, things got heated. Jurors complained about yelling, “playground stuff,” and one juror telling another, “I’ll catch you outside,” prompting repeated defense motions for a mistrial and a later ruling from Judge Curtis Farber brushing it all off as “school yard antics” rather than misconduct serious enough to wipe out the verdict. You can read more about that mixed verdict and the juror drama here.
Only after the jury foreperson flatly refused to continue deliberating on the Mann count did Judge Farber declare a mistrial on that single charge. So the second time around, the mistrial on Mann’s rape charge was a classic hung‑jury scenario: the jury could not unanimously decide that count, and one juror would not keep trying. The rest of the verdict stood.
Round Three: Solo Mann Trial, Hung Again
That brings us to the most recent chapter over the past several weeks. Manhattan prosecutors tried Weinstein a third time on Mann’s 2013 rape allegation, this time as a single‑accuser case. Over five days of testimony, Mann told her story again, this time without other accusers on the stand.
After about two days of deliberations, the jury sent a note saying it was deadlocked. Judge Curtis Farber delivered an Allen charge, urging them to listen to one another, consider whether their doubts were reasonable, and try again without surrendering their honest convictions. A few hours later, the jurors sent a second note saying they were still deadlocked and no one was going to budge. One juror later said the split was 9–3 for acquittal. With the impasse clearly set, the judge declared a mistrial.
Why the Charge Isn’t Sticking
Mistrials themselves aren’t unusual: they’re a safety valve when jurors can’t unanimously reach “guilty” or “not guilty,” or when error makes a valid verdict impossible. What’s unusual in Weinstein’s case is the sequence: a vacated conviction over “prior bad acts” evidence, a multi‑accuser retrial that produced both a conviction and a hung jury on Mann’s count, and then a third, single‑accuser trial that still couldn’t get 12 people to agree.
Add in that more than a decade has passed since the alleged rape, there was no physical evidence, and the latest jury was asked to rest almost everything on Mann’s testimony at a moment when early #MeToo momentum has cooled — especially after Weinstein’s separate Los Angeles, California sex crimes conviction a few years ago pulled public attention west for a time.
The law requires all twelve jurors to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Twice now, that hasn’t happened on this one charge. Whether Manhattan’s district attorney will ask a fourth jury to weigh it is a policy choice, not a legal necessity.
Related Resources:
- New York Rape Laws (FindLaw’s Learn About the Law)
- Must All Jury Verdicts Be Unanimous? (FindLaw’s Learn About the Law)
- What Is the Difference Between Sexual Assault and Rape? (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
