A pair of jurors from Harvey Weinstein’s most recent New York trial say they were pressured into delivering a guilty verdict amid a climate of hostility and fear behind closed courtroom doors, as the New York Post reports.

Two jurors submitted affidavits alleging they faced intense pressure and threats from fellow panel members during the June 2025 retrial that led to Weinstein's conviction for a 2006 assault, prompting his legal team to request the verdict be thrown out.

Weinstein, 73, was convicted in June 2025 on a charge of committing a first-degree criminal sex act against film and TV production assistant Miriam Haley in 2006. The verdict came during a retrial in Manhattan after a prior conviction had been overturned on appeal. Although he was found guilty regarding Haley’s assault, he was acquitted on a separate sexual misconduct charge involving Kaja Sokola and saw a mistrial declared on the most severe charge, connected to former actress Jessica Mann.

In the weeks following the high-profile retrial, two jurors filed affidavits that painted a disturbing picture of jury deliberations, reigniting controversy around the legal proceedings. According to the documents, jurors described an atmosphere of coercion, shouting, and even threats of physical harm. “I regret the verdict,” one juror stated bluntly in the affidavit, explaining that under different conditions, they believed the jury could have deadlocked on the Haley charge.

Another juror said they would have voted to acquit Weinstein on all counts if the vote had been anonymous. The juror claimed others accused them of working with Weinstein and accepting bribes, accelerating the internal jury conflict. One member recounted being told, “We have to get rid of you,” while another juror threatened the foreperson by saying, “You don’t know me. I’ll catch you outside.”

Jurors describe fear, accusations

The foreperson of the jury reportedly went to the judge during deliberations to report being physically threatened. Their complaints exposed a process laced with what one affidavit described as “playground drama” that steadily escalated. Another juror stated that they feared for their personal safety and told their family members to check on them after they returned home from court.

According to reporting by Bloomberg, that juror wrote, “When I arrived home, I called two family members and told them to come look for me if they didn’t hear from me, since something was not right about this jury deliberation process.”

The same juror added, “I was so afraid of the repercussions and feared for my physical safety that I ultimately voted with the majority.”

The details have not gone uncontested. Two jurors have since disputed the accounts made by the foreperson and others, telling the Associated Press that the depictions overstate the tension in the jury room.

Chantan Holmes-Clayborn, a juror who spoke publicly outside Manhattan Supreme Court, labeled the foreperson’s actions during the deliberations as “sneaky.”

Weinstein’s legal future in limbo

Weinstein has not yet been sentenced for his June conviction. His legal team, however, is moving aggressively to invalidate the outcome based on the jurors' sworn complaints. In a courtroom already shaken by mistrials and overturned decisions, these new allegations could have a significant impact on whether the verdict is viewed as just by the legal system and the broader public.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, responding to the mistrial on the rape charge involving Jessica Mann, has indicated its readiness to retry Weinstein on that count. Meanwhile, Weinstein’s attorneys are juggling an appeal in California on a wholly separate case, continuing his multi-front legal fight across state lines.

Justice Curtis Farber, who presided over the New York retrial, commented on the uproar in the jury room, saying, “Sometimes jury deliberations become heated. I understand this particular deliberation was more heated than some others. That’s unfortunate.” His remarks appear to acknowledge the tension without yet taking sides on the consequences of the jurors' claims.

Lessons to learn

1. Jury service should be taken seriously by all parties. Jurors have a responsibility to deliberate with integrity, and deliberations must be free from threats, pressure, or coercion. When fear replaces reason, justice cannot be served.

2. Secrecy can protect justice. Several jurors said they would have voted differently if voting were private. Secret ballots in jury rooms may help prevent peer pressure from influencing critical legal decisions that affect lives and reputations.

3. Always support victims of crime. No matter the circumstances surrounding the trial, it’s crucial to remember that victims deserve safety, respect, and a fair hearing. Crime can impact anyone, and even with caution, no one is immune -- but society must strive never to blame survivors for seeking justice.

Why this story matters

This case sheds light on how jury dynamics can influence major criminal trials, especially those already marred by public attention and prior legal complications. The justice system relies on juror impartiality and respect for the rule of law; when those principles are compromised, confidence in the process suffers.

With stakes this high, the integrity of jury deliberations must be preserved to ensure accountability and fairness for all involved.