AMNA NAWAZ: Now let's
discuss this with one
of Weinstein's defense
attorneys, Donna Rotunno.
She joins us from New York.
Donna, welcome to
the "NewsHour."
In response to the verdict,
you said in a statement there
are issues in the trial that
- - quote -- "prejudiced"
your client's ability to
have his case fairly judged.
You are taking this up with a
higher court, we should point
out. But in what way do you
think this jury or this
court were prejudiced
towards Mr. Weinstein?
DONNA ROTUNNO, Attorney For
Harvey Weinstein: Well, I don't
know if Mr. Weinstein could
have found a fair jury anywhere,
frankly, with the media
coverage that has happened
for the last two years, with
the fact that, especially in
New York, every day, he's a
headline.
He's on the cover of The Post.
He's a headline in The New
York Times, The Daily News, The
Daily Beast, BuzzFeed. So, I
think it was very difficult.
When we questioned jurors,
not one of the jurors had not
heard of Mr. Weinstein out
of the weeks of jury selection.
So I think we were just put
in a difficult position from
day one.
AMNA NAWAZ: But he was convicted
on two charges. They also
acquitted him on two charges.
So, is it fair to say that
they prejudged him, when they
did end up acquitting him on
two of those charges?
DONNA ROTUNNO: Well, they
acquitted him on three charges,
actually, and acquitted (sic)
him on two.
I think that, really, what this
was about was, the evidence
wasn't there to support
a conviction. I have said that
from the very beginning. I
know, when I first got involved
in this case, everyone thought
that that was a crazy statement
to make, but I think, once
the trial did play out and
the witnesses did testify, I
think that became a little more
clearer -- a little more
clear, I should say.
But, in this case, the pressure,
I think, on the jury made
them look at this case and
not worry about the lack of
evidence, and they worried
more about the court of public
opinion.
And what I found most
interesting was, as
the jurors were walking
out, they didn't look
at Harvey, they didn't look at
the prosecutors. They looked
at the press. And that really
told me a lot. I think they
were concerned about coming back
with a finding of not guilty
on all counts.
I do think that the sort of
split verdict shows us that
there was definitely some doubt
back there.
AMNA NAWAZ: Well, there was
a lot of attention paid.
You're right about that.
I want to ask you about
some of the reports that
came out midtrial, because
you were criticized
about the way that you
were questioning some
of those witnesses.
People said that you went
very, very hard, in particular
after Jessica Mann. At one
point, she was crying so hard,
the proceedings in the
courtroom had to stop.
You were questioning really
about why she continued to be
in touch with Mr. Weinstein
even after the rape, asking
him for professional help and
staying in touch with him.
Why did you think that was an
important line of questioning?
How did that help your defense?
DONNA ROTUNNO: Well, I don't
know how it is not important.
Of course, none of us
know what happened -- what
happens in those rooms.
And we have no idea.
We're not there. I'm not
there. You're not there,
the judge, the jury.
But what we do know is every
piece of evidence that we had
documented after the fact. And
so to not look at the
totality of the circumstances
to determine what really
took place in that
room seems remiss.
And, you know, as a
criminal defense attorney,
I go into court, and I
have to defend my client.
I have to ask questions
that have not been asked.
I have to ask questions
that are difficult.
I have to present evidence
that wasn't presented.
And when you look at how these
cases get to the point of
going to trial, there's a grand
jury process.
And when the prosecutors brought
Jessica Mann before the grand
jury, she didn't tell those
grand jurors that she had had
sexual relations with him after
the fact that were consensual
in 2016. She didn't tell
the grand jury about the
e-mail communications.
So, you know, they told this
story in a vacuum. And the first
time we were really able to
bring the full picture to light
was the trial. And, at that
point, so much had already been
written on it, it was almost
as if it was an afterthought.
AMNA NAWAZ: Donna, you mentioned
the things that we know. We
also know, statistically,
that most sexual assault
survivors know their attacker in
some way. We also know that you
can have a consensual sexual
relationship with someone
and still be raped by them.
What is, do you think,
the appropriate level
of contact between
someone like Jessica Mann
and Mr. Weinstein?
DONNA ROTUNNO: Well, I
don't know who can say
what's appropriate and
what isn't appropriate.
But we have a five-year period
of communication that continued
after the fact. And this is
not something where -- you know,
we talk about domestic abuse
situations, which don't equate
in any way to this.
That's someone who lives
in a home with somebody,
that maybe has children
with somebody, that
may be financially
dependent on somebody.
That's not the case
here. Jessica Mann, you
know, benefited from
Mr. Weinstein in certain
ways, but definitely not in
ways that affected her ability
to live a life or have a job.
You know, she asked him for
help in multiple different
avenues, whether it was, help me
get a job or help me
get into a private club
or help me with my car.
And so, you know, the continued
contact, seeking out, the way
she spoke about him to other
people, the way she spoke about
him to therapists, the way she
defended him to her boyfriend,
this wasn't incidental contact
that someone has because they
feel like they need to maintain
a decent relationship.
This far surpassed that.
AMNA NAWAZ: Donna, related to
the trial, but not directly,
you got a lot of attention for
an interview you gave to Megan
Twohey of The New York Times.
It was about the case, but --
and about the trial, but then
she ended the interview by
asking you if you had ever been
a victim of sexual assault.
And you said, "No, I have
not."
And then you said -- quote
-- "Because I would never
put myself in that position."
I have to ask you, do you
believe that these women, who a
jury now decided were raped and
assaulted by Harvey
Weinstein, put themselves in a
situation for that to happen?
DONNA ROTUNNO: Well, I have to
say, that question was asked to
me solely. That question wasn't
asked to me about other people.
It wasn't a commentary on anyone
else. It wasn't a commentary
on, you know, specific
victims in any way.
So, that was a question asked
to me. And, you know, for
me, I would rather fight to
my death than be put in a
circumstance where somebody was
going to sexually assault me.
But that's my -- that's an
answer from me, you know,
having nothing to do with anyone
else.
AMNA NAWAZ: Let me ask you
about what Manhattan district
attorney Cy Vance said.
He did say that, today, in
this day and age, things are
different when it comes to how
the court views some of these
allegations of sexual crimes,
that things have changed
in some way over the
last three or four years.
Do you believe that this verdict
today -- and I ask you because
you have defended a number
of people who are accused of
sexual misconduct over the years
-- do you believe this verdict
changes how sex crimes
are viewed and handled
in our legal system?
DONNA ROTUNNO: I hope
not. I hope not, because,
if we don't look at
individual cases on their
merits, and we don't look
at evidence particular
to a specific defendant
and a specific case,
and we start putting
things under some umbrella
of the way we should
do things, I think that
would be scary for you, scary
for me, and scary for anyone
charged with a crime in this
country.
AMNA NAWAZ: At the same time,
we also know that allegations
of rape and sexual crimes,
they are vastly underreported
and very difficult to
prove in a court of law.
Don't you believe there should
be some weight given to the
credibility of women when they
come forward with
these allegations?
DONNA ROTUNNO: Well,
you know, you have --
we have a presumption
of independence in our
country.
And the presumption of innocence
is that someone charged with a
crime has the right to be viewed
as an innocent person. There
is not a presumption that
someone is telling the truth.
So, I think that to
say that we should just
walk into a courtroom,
let someone tell their
story or their version
of the events, without
questioning that version,
puts us all in jeopardy.
I don't think that we should be
able to give more credibility
-- credibility to someone
just because they say that
they were sexually assaulted.
And I will always refer back to
the Duke lacrosse team. And if
we did that in that case, you
would have that whole entire
group of young men at the time
sitting in the penitentiary.
So, I think we have to be very
careful. It's a slippery slope.
AMNA NAWAZ: Donna Rotunno,
defense attorney for Harvey
Weinstein, joining us from New
York, thank you
for being with us.
DONNA ROTUNNO: I
appreciate it. Thank you.