30 United States The EconomistFebruary 29th 2020
1H
e is nolonger an “alleged” rapist and
his Zimmer frame can return to the
props department. On February 24th a
Manhattan jury convicted Harvey Wein-
stein of rape and of a criminal sex act, ac-
quitting him of the most serious charges of
predatory sexual assault. The former film
producer, who inadvertently accelerated
#MeToo, is now in a New York hospital
awaiting sentencing on March 11th. He
faces between five and 29 years in prison.
For his victims, the #MeToo movement and
the office of the Manhattan District Attor-
ney (da), this is a resounding victory. “This
is the new landscape for survivors of sexual
assault in America. This is a new day,” said
the da, Cyrus Vance junior. Maybe. But ce-
lebrity justice is subject to different rules.
Mr Weinstein’s lawyers need not worry
about being out of work any time soon.
Donna Rotunno, who says her client “took
it like a man,” insists that he will appeal.
There are grounds to do so, including the
judge’s decision to allow extra witnesses to
testify about previous “bad acts” and con-
cern over whether Mr Weinstein could
have a fair trial in a city at the heart of the
#MeToo media storm. Feminist flash-mobs
performed in front of the courthouse, ce-
lebrities gathered outside, there was a daily
Weinstein podcast. His lawyer scolded the
media’s influence but also used it, publish-
ing an appeal to the jury in a Newsweek
op-ed as they started deliberations.
The appeals process could easily take a
year, which Mr Weinstein is unlikely to
spend at liberty. In the meantime, he faces
criminal charges in Los Angeles and a
stream of civil suits by women who claim
he abused them. The difference is that he
now faces them as a convicted rapist.
It therefore seems unlikely that he will
sit out his retirement comfortably. But per-
haps the more salient question is what this
will change. Bennett Capers, a Brooklyn
law professor, doubts there is a much wider
significance. “Many will undoubtedly see
this as possibly signalling a new era where
prosecutors believe victims and pursue
sexual assault cases, even against the pow-
erful,” he says. But “will the verdict help
everyday victims” like hotel workers, or
where there is a single accuser?
The Weinstein conviction is being pre-
sented as a watershed moment that will
change the way police, prosecutors and ju-
ries deal with such cases. No longer will
women who report rape late, or whose tes-timoniesareincomplete or complicated,
face scepticism, goes the theory. In fact,
after an initial bump, reporting rates of sex-
ual violence in America as low as they were
before #MeToo struck. Public attitudes to
what constitutes sexual harassment have
barely changed over that time, according to
polls by YouGov for The Economist.
Celebrity justice is not normal justice.
Even the most public trials have less lasting
impact than the frenzied coverage might
suggest. The fact that the Weinstein case
even made it to trial is an anomaly in sex
crimes. As with other big celebrity trials,
such as those of Phil Spector, Michael Jack-
son, O.J. Simpson and Bill Cosby, a lot of
public money was invested in the investi-
gation that led to Mr Weinstein’s convic-
tion. This was matched in investment by
the media. No amount of vetting would
have been able to put together a jury that
would not be influenced by fame of the
subject and of his accusers. Celebrity trials
can create unrealistic expectations in fu-
ture jurors’ minds. Mr Weinstein had doz-
ens of glamorous, public accusers. Most
victims are alone and unknown.
The next stop for the Weinstein media
circus will probably be Los Angeles, the
birthplace of celebrity justice. The local re-
cord of convicting celebrities is poor and
scarred by the very public decision of a jury
to acquit Mr Simpson of murdering his
wife and her friend Ron Goldman. It will be
tempting to fixate on whether the da can
do any better with Mr Weinstein. But just as
Mr Simpson’s acquittal, though dramatic,
was largely irrelevant for the handling of
most murder trials, so Mr Weinstein’s con-
viction may not prove the seismic moment
for cases of sexual assault that many peo-
ple assume it to be. 7Harvey Weinstein has been convicted.
This changes everything. Or does it?Harvey WeinsteinCelebrity justice
Not your average trialF
or yearsafter John Roberts was named
chief justice by George W. Bush in 2005,
he presided over the “Kennedy court”—a
tribunal that swayed left or right depend-
ing on the views of his maverick colleague,
Anthony Kennedy. But in October 2018,
when Donald Trump replaced Mr Kennedy
with the more conservative Brett Kava-
naugh, Mr Roberts assumed the role of me-
dian justice—four colleagues to his right,
four to his left. The chief became, in the
most divisive cases, the tie-breaker.
He is breaking mostly to the right. Last
June, Mr Roberts wrote 5-4 decisions on
partisan gerrymandering (a win for conser-
vatives) and the proposed citizenship
question on the 2020 census (a victory for
liberals). He has anchored a series of 5-4
votes allowing Mr Trump to implement
hardline immigration policies. One such
move on February 21st prompted Justice
Sonia Sotomayor to charge her conserva-
tive colleagues with “erod[ing]” the court’s
“fair and balanced decision-making pro-
cess” by favouring “one litigant”—Mr
Trump—“over all others”. The president re-
sponded on February 25th with the pre-
posterous demand that Justices Sotomayor
and Ruth Bader Ginsburg recuse them-
selves from all “Trump-related” matters.
This squabble is one that Mr Roberts, a
zealous defender of the court’s impartiality
and legitimacy, is desperate to avoid. Yet
cultivating an image of non-partisanship
will be tricky, because he is tackling a host
of clashes on the most electric docket the
Supreme Court has seen in recent memory.
Already the justices have considered gun
rights, a major church-state quandary,
lgbt protections in the workplace and
daca, an Obama-era programme protect-
ing unauthorised immigrants who were
brought to America as children. While they
work on decisions in those cases, still more
controversies are on the way.
Two presidential priorities are on the
docket next week. Seila Law v Consumer Fi-
nancial Protection Bureau (cfpb)—could
doom the federal agency established to
protect consumers after the 2007-09 finan-
cial crisis. Congress set up the cfpbwith a
single director whom the president may re-
place only “for cause”—that is, for palpable
misbehaviour. Seila Law asks if that struc-
ture is constitutional; the plaintiff, and the
Trump administration, say it is not. The
challengers contend that this “unduly in-
hibits the president’s ability to superviseNEW YORK
The chief justice is poised to decide a
clutch of controversies this springThe Supreme CourtRoberts rules