LOL, Harvey Weinstein Wants a New Judge Now Because This One Was Too Mean to Him
Harvey Weinstein’s New York trial began this week, kicking off two weeks of jury selection before an expected eight more weeks of actual trial. Weinstein has a long road ahead of him—and that’s just for this trial. Next up: California crimes! So how did he choose to start off his very first day in court? By pissing off the judge and refusing to follow the most basic of rules, of course.
Weinstein got a scolding from Judge Burke just 5 mins into the first day of trial for using his phone—despite repeated warnings not to.
“Mr. Weinstein…is this really the way that you want to land up in jail for the rest of your life…by texting and violating a court order?”
— Molly Crane-Newman (@molcranenewman) January 7, 2020
Weinstein reportedly brought multiple phones into the courtroom, despite it being a no-phones zone. And yet he’s casting himself as the victim in this scenario, asking New York State Supreme Court Judge James Burke to recuse himself for “prejudicial and inflammatory comments.”
What Judge Burke said to him was “Mr. Weinstein, I could not implore you more to not answer the following question: Is this really the way you want to end up in jail for the rest of your life, by texting in violation of an order? Is it?”
In a letter to the judge, Weinstein’s legal team wrote that the comments displayed “animus” toward their client. But if a defendant disobeyed multiple instructions to put away multiple phones, all of which are prohibited, how is the judge supposed to react? With a smile and a hug? Trade the phones for kittens?
I’m not a legal expert but Burke’s comments sound like animosity (meaning hostility), not animus (basically an intent to interfere based on that hostility), which sounds pretty reasonable in these circumstances.
It’s not just the judge Weinstein thinks is out to get him. His team had also previously requested that the trial be moved outside of New York because they didn’t think they could find impartial jurors there. Which, honestly, is a fair concern. According to CBS News, when the judge asked if any prospective jurors thought they wouldn’t be able to be impartial in such a high-profile case, about 40 hands went up. But that’s not a New York issue. It’s not like people in New Jersey or Connecticut or Montana haven’t heard about Harvey Weinstein and already have their own opinions.
It’s going to be hard to find unbiased jurors, sure. But shenanigans like constant prohibited texting isn’t going to help him. Neither is this clownery:
lmfao get fucked, Harvey, literally no one’s falling for this pic.twitter.com/2LEj5b3uaz
— Scott Wampler™ (@ScottWamplerBMD) January 8, 2020
It’s going to be a long 10 weeks.
(via HuffPost, image: Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)
Want more stories like this? Become a subscriber and support the site!
—The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.—
Have a tip we should know? firstname.lastname@example.org