Harvey Weinstein’s Retrial: 5 Things To Know 

Today, jury selection begins in the retrial of Harvey Weinstein, the former Hollywood producer and previously convicted sex offender, who once again faces multiple allegations of sexual assault.  

We’re following the proceedings closely and examining what it reveals about how the courts address sexual violence. Our experts will also be asking the tough questions, among them: can the US legal system follow a context-led approach, and focus strongly on the actions of the alleged perpetrator rather than blaming and re-traumatizing the complainants?  This moment is about more than just one powerful public figure. It’s about whether the justice system is capable of looking beyond social status and only at the facts.

1. Background: Why was Weinstein’s Conviction Overturned?  

Since 2017, sexual assault allegations against Weinstein flooded headlines around the world, sparking global outrage and encouraging thousands of survivors to speak up and speak out about their experiences of sexual violence. Their discourse helped ignite the #MeToo movement and shifted the conversation about sexual violence to focus more clearly on accountability, power, and unbalanced access to justice. 

In 2020, Weinstein was criminally convicted in New York of rape and sexual assault, in a case widely seen as a landmark moment for justice. However, in 2024, New York’s highest court—the Court of Appeals—overturned the conviction. The court found that the trial judge erred in allowing the prosecution to introduce testimony of sexual misconduct by Weinstein from women whose allegations were not part of the formal charges.

The original trial had relied on a federal legal doctrine that permits the use of “prior bad acts” to establish a pattern of behavior in cases of sexual misconduct. But New York State law has stricter limitations on such evidence. The court ruled that including testimony from additional survivors, although powerful and credible, risked prejudicing the jury. As a result, Weinstein’s conviction was overturned.

Read more about the 2024 trial here.

2. What’s Different in Weinstein’s 2025 Trial? 

The retrial, which begins today, will proceed under close scrutiny. The 73-year-old will be tried on a sex crime charge, third-degree rape, and a forced oral sex charge based an allegation that was added to the case in 2024. 

This time, prosecutors will present a narrower case, more tightly focused on the specific allegations in the indictment. However, some key developments may impact the trial’s outcome:

• Jessica Mann, one of the central accusers, will be allowed to testify that Weinstein used force during the alleged 2013 rape. This is significant because, while Weinstein was previously acquitted of first-degree rape (which requires proof of forcible compulsion), this testimony could help clarify the severity of the allegations and correct misconceptions from the earlier trial.
• Dr. Dawn Hughes, a clinical psychologist specializing in trauma, will again take the stand to provide expert insight into common responses to sexual assault—helping the jury understand behaviors such as delayed reporting, continued contact with the abuser, and emotional numbness.

Read more on the Adult Survivors Act.

While the scope of the retrial is narrower, the stakes remain just as high, as it will push the courts to reexamine force, consent, and evidentiary requirements in sexual violence cases. 

3. Force vs. Consent: What Does the Law Say? 

In Weinstein’s 2020 New York trial, the jury acquitted him of first-degree rape—a charge requiring proof of “forcible compulsion”—but convicted him of third-degree rape, which hinges on a lack of consent.

Many legal systems, either in law or in practice, still require evidence of physical force or resistance to substantiate rape charges, effectively ignoring situations where force isn’t overtly applied. This framework fails to protect all survivors and does not reflect the realities of sexual violence, where coercion, manipulation, and power dynamics are often overlooked when evaluating evidence.​

In New York State, a first degree rape charge is classified as a class B felony resulting in up to 25 years imprisonment; while a third degree rape charge is classified as a class E felony resulting in up to 4 years imprisonment, with no minimum sentencing. 

In judicial structures which effectively require proof of force to convict a perpetrator of rape the focus almost always turns on survivors who end up having to persuade the court that their own actions hadn’t permitted or caused the perpetrator to act as they did. 

And in Weinstein’s case specifically, the tension between federal and state laws reflects a broader legal challenge. While some jurisdictions allow prosecutors to establish patterns of sexual violence through prior bad acts, particularly in cases where consent is disputed, others reject testimony from witnesses who did not bring the formal charges.

This legal grey area can work against survivors and fails to account for the realities of serial abuse and the way sexual violence is commonly committed, not as isolated incidents, but as repeated behaviors enabled by power, silence, and impunity.

The law should reflect those realities. Until it does, justice will remain elusive for far too many.

Equality Now’s Consent Campaign advocates for laws that define rape based on the absence of consent and genuine willingness rather than the presence of force, narrowly defined. Such legal reforms are essential to ensure that all non-consensual sexual acts are recognized as crimes, regardless of whether physical force is evident.​

4. A Call for the Universal Adoption of International Human Rights Standards for Sexual Violence Cases

International human rights mechanisms such as the Belém do Pará Convention, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the Istanbul Convention and their jurisprudence are clear: sex without consent is rape. The United States is one of few high-income countries that has yet to adopt any of these international treaties, and the consequences of this failure, and the lack of centering justice to align with these standards, almost always negatively impacts survivors. 

Adopting international human rights standards on sexual violence would align US laws with a global consensus that prioritizes the protection of survivors and the prosecution of perpetrators. It would also send a powerful message that sexual violence will not be tolerated and that justice systems must evolve to recognize the true nature of consent and coercion.​

As Weinstein’s retrial unfolds, it serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for legal and practice reforms that center on willing consent, hold perpetrators accountable, and provide survivors with the justice they deserve.

5. What Can We Expect from the 2025 Retrial?

The retrial, which is expected to last up to six weeks, will revisit the charges of sexual assault brought against Weinstein and will identify whether the legal system can operate in a context-led, perpetrator-focused, and victim-centered manner.​

The overturning of Weinstein’s conviction has already sent a chilling message to many survivors about the fragility of even hard-won legal victories. The current justice system must work harder to protect survivors and ensure it is delivering justice in all cases. 

We must do better. The world is watching.