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.