Front Burner - Weinstein conviction: a watershed moment for #MeToo?

Episode Date: February 25, 2020

A New York City jury has found Harvey Weinstein guilty of a criminal sexual act in the first degree and of third-degree rape. Today, Megan Garber of The Atlantic joins Front Burner to unpack the court proceedings that led to Weinstein's conviction and discusses whether this trial is a watershed moment for the #MeToo movement

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hello, I'm Jamie Poisson. A New York jury has found movie producer Harvey Weinstein guilty of rape and a criminal sexual act. Harvey Weinstein has finally been held accountable for crimes he committed. The women who came forward courageously and at great

risk made that happen. However, the jury did not convict him of one of the most serious charges, predatory sexual assault. That could have sent him to prison for life. Ever since a 2017 New York Times investigation revealed a series of sexual assault allegations against Weinstein. Over 80 women have come forward to accuse him of misconduct. The coverage, of course, gave rise to what we know now as the Me Too movement. Today, The Atlantic's Megan Garber is joining me to talk about the verdict, what happened during the trial, and whether this really is a watershed moment. She's been following the trial closely and has been writing about the Me Too movement since the beginning. Just a warning,

there are some disturbing details in this conversation. This is FrontBurner. Hi Megan, thank you so much for taking the time. Oh, it's my pleasure. Thank you. So the charges against Weinstein, they were focused really quite narrowly, even though there were more than 80 accusations against him post MeToo movement. But there are two very focused charges from two women, Jessica Mann and Miriam Halle. And can you remind us who they are? Sure. So they were both members of the entertainment industry. Jessica Mann was an aspiring actress who met Weinstein at a party in Los Angeles, I believe, and had basically a networking kind of relationship with him initially.

And she was hoping that he would be able to help facilitate her career in Hollywood and that she could potentially star in some of the movies that he produced. Miriam, who also goes by Mimi Halle, was a producer. She worked on Project Runway. And she, too, had initially met Weinstein thinking she said that she wanted to, you know, be associated with him professionally. And what did they say happened to them? Essentially, what it comes down to is Miss Halle said that Harvey Weinstein forced oral sex on her when they were in his apartment.

So he backed me into a dark room, which looked like, you know, there was kids' drawings on the walls and didn't seem like a master bedroom or anything. And he held me down and he forced oral sex on me, basically. And then Jessica Mann says that Harvey Weinstein raped her. And the evidence that was put forward at this trial was quite graphic at times, including a naked photograph of Harvey Weinstein, right? That's right. And that came about because Mann had testified that sort of in the line of really emphasizing that this was not a consensual encounter. She testified that she really was not attracted to him

and that she remembered his body being, in her words, a little bit deformed. She testified she thought he was intersex, that he didn't have testicles, and it appears he has a vagina. So in order to prove that point, I believe it was the prosecution put up a photo of Weinstein's body. It was only shown to the jury, so not to the full audience of the courtroom, but shown to the jury to sort of prove

that what she was saying was correct. Okay. Just to be clear, you know, on Monday, what happened was Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of raping in the third degree Jessica Mann and a criminal sexual act in the first degree involving Miriam or Mimi Halle, right? That's correct. Four other women testified at this trial. And can you help me understand what role they played as well?

Sure. So essentially, there was there was kind of another thread of argumentation happening in the trial, which was the prosecutors trying to establish Harvey Weinstein as a predator, predatory sexual assault, as someone who did this serially. And so the four women whose charges were not officially on the docket were there to essentially bolster the prosecution's case. The prosecution hoped that Weinstein not only had committed individual and discrete acts of sexual assault, but that in fact he had a pattern of predatory behavior towards women. And an actress, Annabella Sciorra, she had a role in the prosecution's case around this. Tell me more about her. Testimony from former Sopranos actress Annabella Sciorra. She described in painful detail how Weinstein raped her more than 25 years ago. Past the statute of limitations, the prosecution used it to support predatory sexual assault charges tied to man...

Sure, so she was the first person to testify and really kind of set the tone. She told her recounting of basically a relationship with Weinstein that began when they were both sort of young in their careers, both in New York, both knew each other. And she too, had, you know, sort of initially met him in the context of professional work, and thinking he's a producer, I'm an actress, and all of that. And they, they sort of knew each

other, just casually. And then she tells the story of one time they had gone to dinner together and he gave her a ride home. He took her to her apartment. And then after she had gone into her apartment, you know, gotten ready, as she says, for bed, she gives a detail that she had put on a nightgown that was actually a family heirloom from her family in Italy and really, you know, was ready to go to bed, she said. And then she got a knock on the door and alleged that Weinstein, you know, barged in and then essentially assaulted her. So that was her testimony. And again, that was not something that was being specifically adjudicated as a charge in the case. It was meant to bolster the prosecution's contention that Weinstein had a pattern of predatory behavior. Right. And of course, Weinstein said that he didn't rape any of the women that he's accused of sexually assaulting.

And this other charge of being a sexual predator, the charge that these other women were brought in to help bolster, he was acquitted of that on Monday, right? That's correct. That's right. There was at least some sense that the jury was deadlocked here. was at least some sense that the jury was deadlocked here. And I will be very curious to know, you know, this is very early after the verdict has come in and the jurors are just now starting to speak to the media. And I will be very curious to know their accounts of what happened in that jury room to lead to that conclusion.

This is a jury of seven men and five women. And then just for people listening, Harvey Weinstein now could be sentenced five to 29 years for the two counts that he was found guilty of. I want to talk to you a little bit more about what happened in the trial. And I want to get into the defense here a little bit. Weinstein's lawyers argued that the accusers were in consensual and often transactional relationships with the movie producer. This is not a rare form of argument that you hear in sexual assault cases.

But, you know, talk to me a little bit about the arguments that they put forward. They really emphasize the idea that, you know, the women got something out of this. The women, you know, on some level, the argument went, wanted this because a relationship with Weinstein would further their careers, the argument went. We found a lot of documentary evidence. The defense had basically gone through, you know, the emails and the correspondence of the women who testified and really pointed out instances where they seemed to be very friendly toward Weinstein, you know, seemed in some cases almost loving toward him. And it becomes very complicated because the women did have relationships

with him after these alleged assaults. And so it became a very sort of complex thing to think about, you know, what is the distinction between, you know, between an assault and between something that is not consensual and between a relationship that is nonetheless ongoing. And I think the trial really brought out those nuances and complications. I know this is something that you've been particularly interested in, right? Like this concept of consent. Tell me a little bit more about what you gleaned from this trial. In so many ways, this trial has been really difficult to follow just because, you know, the testimonies really were harrowing in a lot of ways. You know, you have to really feel for the women who are on the stand, you know, and going forward in public and, you know, talking about these most intimate moments of their lives in a very public forum. And it's not easy for anyone to do.

But I also have been thinking there's something so productive about what's been happening just in the sense of it's really been challenging a lot of longstanding and regressive myths about what sexual violence really looks like. You know, I think that we still, at least in America, have these mythologies about, you know, rape is something that is done by a stranger and that happens, you know, in a dark alley. You know, those myths are really not reflective of reality. Quite often, the assailant is someone that the victim knows. And quite often, you know, things are much more complicated than the sort of, you know, black and white image of things would have us believe. And I think this trial did a really good job, even in the most sort of horrific of contexts, to make clear how complicated these things can be. And, you know, just the idea that these women could, you know, be assaulted by Weinstein, but then also carry on relationships with him because

they felt they really didn't have a choice. Just that nuance, I think, is really significant. And it's very important that the jury, you know, believe the women when that's what they said. Right. I know the prosecution brought in experts, right, to talk about what women might be going through after an alleged sexual assault. Were you surprised to see this verdict, knowing the evidence that was presented in this trial and maybe how past sexual assault trials have turned out? You know, it's interesting. Yes, in some ways I really was, because I think there isn't often a good reason to be optimistic when it comes to these cases, because so often, you know, justice is not served or so often, you know, the juries are just unwilling to empathize with what the alleged victim is saying. to it. But I also just think we have come around to this moment where, you know, in a lot of ways,

the regressive ideas about what sexual violence looks like no longer really hold. And I think a lot of people are coming around to that. And, you know, the idea of a jury of one's peers can sort of cut both ways because it means that, you know, on the one hand, the jury might be subject to regressive ideas. But on the other hand, it means that the jury has been living in a world that's having new notions about what sexual violence looks like. And so I think it was a little bit of both, but I think I was a little bit surprised, but a little bit thinking that this would be the outcome. I would imagine that Harvey Weinstein's lawyer, Donna Rotono,

you know, she might argue at this point in our conversation what she argued in the trial, that actually what has happened to Harvey Weinstein is that public outrage of his behavior had branded him a rapist, and then he was not able to get due process. We knew we came in and we were down 35 to nothing the day that we started this trial. The jurors came in knowing everything that they could know about this case. We couldn't find a juror that never heard of Harvey Weinstein. What do you make of that argument in light of this verdict on Monday? Well, I think it was really the only argument available to the defense on some level, because, I mean, another thing that was so interesting to me about the trial in general was,

for the most part, you know, the facts of the matter were not being adjudicated. I mean, there was no real argument about whether these things had happened. It was more a question of had they happened in a consensual way as the defense claimed or in a non-consensual way as the prosecution claimed. And so that was sort of the idea at play. So it really became about, you know, Harvey Weinstein's own perspective on things in a lot of ways. And so I think, you know, if that becomes the situation, you sort of have to focus things in that very narrow way on, you know, what is due to your client. So why do you think that's so narrow?

Why? Why do you think it's such a narrow way to focus it? a lot was, you know, both in media interviews and in the case, sort of, you know, imagine that this is your husband or your father or yourself, you know, and sort of put yourself in the shoes of Harvey Weinstein and think about how easy it is to not get due process, that kind of idea. And so I think that was sort of the broader kind of argument that was happening. And we saw that again and again in the, in the narrower arguments of the trial. Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. We didn't hear from Weinstein during the trial.

He didn't testify. Prior to the trial, though, he did give this interview to the New York Post where he talked about, you know, his belief that he actually did quite a bit to promote women in Hollywood by giving them roles, by paying them well. I know we didn't hear from Weinstein on Monday, although the New York Times is reporting that he did turn to his lawyers after the verdict. All he kept saying over and over again was, I'm innocent, I'm innocent. How could this happen in America? I'm innocent, I'm innocent. Have we heard yet, you and I are talking on Monday afternoon, from his lawyers? Well, one thing to note is that they are going to appeal if they have not already. They probably

already have by the time we're having this conversation. So in their minds, this is not fully over. This has not been fully adjudicated. And I think one of his attorneys, you know, said he will be home within the week was his prediction. You know, and it's an open question how much of that is sort of just general posturing and how much he actually believes that. But, you know, they don't think that this is over, I think. And that's sort of the public position that they're taking. Can I ask you, what did you make of the tone of the trial? A lot of it I found very dispiriting, I have to say. And, you know, and I should note, this is,

I was not in the room. And so, you know, what, the way that I consumed it was, you know, looking at transcripts and, you know, largely through media reports and that kind of thing. So there's kind of a level of distance between, you know, what actually happened in the room and the way I was able to consume it. But, you know, even just in in the room and the way I was able to consume it. But, you know, even just in that form, a lot of it just felt so kind of regressive and sad in a lot of ways. It was also interesting, there was a lot of kind of drama on both sides. In the opening statement, one of the prosecution's lawyers, you know, really made a point about dramatizing the disconnect of power between Weinstein and these women who are making the accusations. And so there was this sort of interplay between high drama and then very intimate, minute and really sad and horrific storytelling that I found a little bit jarring sometimes.

Before we end this conversation today, one thing I wanted to ask you a little bit more about, I know we sort of unpacked this during the conversation, but this idea that this case could be some sort of watershed moment. The DA said today that he believes the women who testified, quote, have changed the course of history in the fight against sexual violence. Do you think that's true or is this case, you know, an incredibly high profile case and is in itself an anomaly? I think it's a little bit of both, actually. I think there is, you know, I think, yes, this is a really big day, you know, for the survivors of sexual violence. I think that's just that is a fact. But I think also, you know, it's qualified. I mean, both in the sense that the verdict was not fully guilty.

You know, there was that mixture of, yes, we believe the women, but not fully in the verdict. we believe the women, but not fully in the verdict. I also, I was on a phone call earlier today with many of the women who had made accusations against Weinstein, who largely because of statutes of limitation were unable to bring criminal claims against him. And it was really interesting to hear their perspective because they, on the one hand, were, you know, very relieved, I think would be the right way to describe it, because a lot of them had been preparing themselves for a not guilty verdict, you know, but at the same time, they were they were happy with the verdict, but they also felt like, okay, now the real work starts, I think, you know, now becomes the conversations about, you know, how does the American justice system

sort of reckon with the new realities of sexual violence, or at least the new knowledge of the realities of sexual violence, and how might the system actually serve survivors better. And so it's this mixture of, it was sort of a qualified hope. It was a little bit of joy, but also we're not done. This isn't everything. This is not a pure victory. Megan, thank you so much for this conversation. Oh, thank you. It's so nice to be with you. Megan Garber is a writer with The Atlantic. So that is not it for Harvey Weinstein and the courts. He also faces charges connected to rape and sexual assault in Los Angeles. The Manhattan District Attorney says Weinstein's New York sentencing will wrap up before any proceedings begin in LA. Also, before we go today, a major update on a story we have covered

on the pod, the Tech Resources Oil Sands Project in northern Alberta. Tech has decided to scrap the project, blaming both market and political forces. We're going to dig into this on Wednesday, but you can check out our earlier episode. It's in the feed. That's it for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening to FrontBurner and talk to you tomorrow.

For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.