A New York judge declared a mistrial in Harvey Weinstein's rape case after jurors told the court they were hopelessly split on whether the disgraced movie mogul sexually assaulted actress Jessica Mann, the second time a jury has failed to reach a verdict on the allegation and the third trial connected to the charge.
Justice Curtis Farber ended the proceedings after the panel reported it could not achieve unanimity. Newsmax reported that Farber said it was clear jurors were "hopelessly deadlocked" and that "there was no reason to keep them any longer."
The mistrial leaves Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office with a hard question: spend more taxpayer money on a fourth trial, or let the charge go. Bragg has until a June 24 hearing to decide, and the answer will say a great deal about whether this prosecution is still about justice or about something else entirely.
The legal saga around the Jessica Mann allegation has stretched across three separate proceedings. Weinstein was first convicted in 2020, but that guilty verdict was overturned on appeal because of the mishandling of witnesses. A retrial left the Mann charge unresolved when deliberations broke down amid what Breitbart reported was described as a jury-room feud in 2025.
Now a third jury has deadlocked on the same allegation.
Weinstein spokesman Judah Engelmayer told AFP the pattern speaks for itself:
"After hearing the evidence multiple times and seeing two juries unable to reach unanimity, it's clear there is significant reasonable doubt here."
Engelmayer went further, saying defense polling showed nine of the 12 jurors favored acquittal. That claim cannot be independently confirmed, but it aligns with what juror Josh Hadar told reporters. AP News reported that Hadar said Mann had an "incredible memory" on direct examination but "forgot a lot of things" under defense questioning.
The jury itself sent a note to the judge: "We feel that no one is going to change where they stand."
Jessica Mann, now 40, has taken the stand against Weinstein three times. Her testimony was emotional. She took occasional pauses as her voice broke. She told the jury last month that when she first met Weinstein at a party in early 2013, she was a 27-year-old aspiring actress and he appeared to be a generous mentor.
"I felt like he was a really nice person and he was offering to mentor me."
Mann recalled that Weinstein showered her with compliments. "He told me that I was prettier than Natalie Portman," she said. His apparent interest in boosting her career initially seemed like a "miracle."
But Mann also described a darker turn. The Washington Examiner reported that she testified, "I said 'no,' over and over, and I tried to leave." The prosecution painted a picture of an abusive relationship in which Weinstein exploited his Hollywood power.
The defense, however, framed Mann as a willing romantic partner. Dale Margolin Cecka, director of the Family Violence Litigation Clinic at Albany Law School, told AFP that Weinstein's legal team knew exactly how to exploit the ambiguity. Weinstein, she said, "knew his team could paint Ms. Mann as a 'romantic partner' and plant doubt."
That strategy has now worked twice. Two different juries heard the same core evidence and could not agree.
Bragg issued a measured statement after the ruling, expressing disappointment while praising the jury system.
"While we are disappointed that the proceedings ended with a mistrial, we deeply respect the jury system and sincerely thank all of the jurors for their time and dedication. For nearly a decade, Jessica Mann has fought for justice."
The statement is careful. It does not commit to a fourth trial. Cecka noted that Bragg has 30 days to make that call and that Mann "would have to go through the entire process again" if he proceeds.
Engelmayer made the Weinstein camp's position blunt: "The Manhattan District Attorney's Office should stop retrying the same case and focus its time and taxpayer resources on the actual violent crime, chaos, and public safety issues impacting New Yorkers every day."
That line will sting because it lands on a real nerve. Bragg's office has faced persistent criticism for its handling of violent crime in Manhattan. Whether one sympathizes with Weinstein or not, the question of resource allocation is legitimate. Three trials on one charge with no conviction is not a record that inspires confidence in prosecutorial judgment. And it is fair to ask whether the political symbolism of the Weinstein case, a case that launched the global MeToo movement, has made it harder for Bragg's office to walk away, even when the evidence repeatedly fails to persuade a unanimous jury.
The broader pattern of selective accountability in high-profile misconduct cases is not lost on voters who watch some defendants pursued relentlessly while others barely face scrutiny.
The mistrial does not set Weinstein free. The 74-year-old remains in prison. Fox News reported that during the 2025 retrial, Weinstein was convicted on one count of first-degree criminal sexual act involving movie producer Miriam Haley, though jurors found him not guilty of assaulting another accuser, Kaja Sokola.
He is also serving a 16-year prison term in a California case for the rape of a European actress more than a decade ago. He is appealing both the California conviction and the Haley conviction.
Mann herself acknowledged the mistrial does not erase what she told the court. Fox News quoted her saying: "Today's decision to declare a mistrial doesn't in any way detract from the truth I told and the violent crimes Harvey Weinstein committed upon me and so many others."
Cecka noted that civil claims remain an option. "These women can still bring civil claims," she told AFP, pointing to a legal path that carries a lower burden of proof.
The Weinstein saga began in 2017, when blockbuster investigations by The New Yorker and The New York Times laid bare a series of claims by young women. Those reports triggered an avalanche of allegations from more than 80 complainants and prompted the global MeToo movement that reshaped Hollywood and corporate America. Whatever one thinks of that movement's excesses, the original reporting exposed real predatory conduct, conduct for which Weinstein has been convicted and imprisoned in separate proceedings.
But a conviction on one charge does not mean every charge will stick. The jury system exists precisely to make that distinction, and two juries now have drawn the same line on the Mann allegation. That is not a failure of justice. It is justice working as designed, even when the result is uncomfortable for prosecutors who have staked enormous institutional credibility on a particular outcome.
The legal landscape continues to shift in high-profile criminal cases across New York, from appeals courts overturning major convictions to ongoing debates over sentencing and clemency. The question in each case is the same: are prosecutors following the evidence, or following the headlines?
Bragg's office now faces a June 24 deadline. A fourth trial would put Mann on the stand yet again, force taxpayers to fund another round of proceedings, and carry no guarantee of a different result. Dropping the charge would invite accusations of surrender from advocacy groups that have treated the Weinstein prosecution as a referendum on whether powerful men can be held accountable.
Neither option is clean. But the facts are stubborn. Two juries heard the case. Two juries split. If nine of 12 jurors genuinely favored acquittal, as the defense claims, a fourth trial starts to look less like a pursuit of justice and more like a refusal to accept a verdict the prosecution does not like.
Weinstein will remain behind bars on his other convictions. The system has not failed to punish him. The system has, however, repeatedly refused to convict him on this particular charge, and there is a difference between a man who escapes accountability and a case that cannot meet its burden of proof.
Elsewhere in the justice system, questions about clemency and sentencing continue to test whether the legal process serves principle or politics. The Weinstein mistrial is another data point in that debate.
Meanwhile, New Yorkers dealing with real public-safety concerns might reasonably wonder how many times their district attorney plans to retry a case two juries could not resolve, while the streets outside the courthouse present problems no amount of symbolic prosecution will fix.
Juries are not rubber stamps. When two of them say the evidence falls short, a prosecutor who keeps swinging is no longer seeking justice. He is seeking a headline.
