Nine of twelve jurors favored acquittal in Harvey Weinstein's third New York rape retrial before a mistrial was declared, complicating prospects for a fourth prosecution.
Harvey Weinstein's third New York rape retrial ended in a mistrial on May 15, 2026, after jurors deadlocked and could not reach a unanimous verdict [2]. Following the declaration of a mistrial, juror Josh Hadar told reporters that nine of the twelve deliberating jurors had favored acquittal, citing what he described as inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony during cross-examination [2]. The disclosure hands prosecutors a concrete measure of where the jury stood and complicates any calculus favoring a fourth trial.
The case, People v. Weinstein, was tried before Manhattan Supreme Court. Weinstein faced charges stemming from allegations made by Jessica Mann, one of the central complainants across his successive prosecutions [1]. Deliberations were interrupted when Weinstein reported chest pains while held in a courthouse holding area, prompting a one-day suspension of proceedings [1]. Before the medical delay, jurors had requested a readback of portions of Mann's testimony and asked to review a prosecution evidence timeline, signaling the panel was scrutinizing the factual record closely before the impasse hardened [1].
The nine-to-three split in favor of acquittal is a significant data point for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office as it weighs whether to pursue a fourth prosecution. Under New York law, a mistrial permits retrial without double jeopardy implications, but a supermajority leaning toward acquittal raises practical questions about the strength of the remaining evidentiary record. Defense counsel, including Marc Agnifilo and Curtis Farber, had pressed hard on Mann's cross-examination testimony throughout the proceeding [2]. Hadar's post-verdict comments suggest that challenge found traction with most of the panel.
The mistrial also arrives with broader implications for how prosecutors in high-profile sexual assault cases prepare complaining witnesses. Juror skepticism rooted in perceived testimonial inconsistency, rather than a dispute over physical evidence, points to a recurring vulnerability in MeToo-era prosecutions that rely heavily on a single complainant's account across multiple trial proceedings [2]. Each retrial gives the defense additional opportunities to probe the testimony record for inconsistencies accumulated over years of prior testimony.
The Manhattan District Attorney's Office has not publicly announced whether it will seek a fourth trial. Any such decision will require prosecutors to assess the juror breakdown, evaluate whether new evidence or a revised witness strategy could shift outcomes, and consider the institutional costs of a fourth prosecution of a defendant who has reported significant health issues during trial proceedings [1] [2].
—