Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer says he’s only guilty of cheating on wife

Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer has said in a TV interview that the disgraced Hollywood producer committed sins by cheating on his wife but that doesn’t make him a criminal as jury deliberations continue in his rape trial. 

Lead defense lawyer Donna Rotunno made the comments in a sit-down interview with 60 Minutes Australia that is set to air on Sunday. 

The interview was filmed in New York last Friday prior to the judge ordering Rotunno not to speak to reporter’s until after Weinstein’s trial concludes. 

The gag order was issued after Rotunno wrote an op-ed for Newsweek that was published on Saturday urging jurors to find Weinstein not guilty. 

In a clip of the yet-to-air interview, Rotunno insisted Weinstein was not guilty of the rape and sexual assault charges he is currently on trial for. 

‘A sin is cheating on your wife,’ Rotunno, who is known for loathing the #MeToo movement, said. 

‘Is Harvey guilty of committing sins? Sure, but that doesn’t make you a criminal.’

Weinstein’s wife of a decade, fashion designer Georgina Chapman, divorced him after dozens of women started coming forward in 2017 accusing him of sexual assault or misconduct. 

Rotunno, in the interview, also addressed an argument she made repeatedly at trial that many of Weinstein’s accusers needed to take responsibility for their actions.   

‘When you go home with someone after swiping right, act like you have no idea what you may be consenting to seems ridiculous,’ Rotunno said in the clip. 

Rotunno has taken aim before at the credibility of the women who have accused Weinstein of assaulting them. 

In her closing arguments, Rotunno said the accusations were ‘regret renamed as rape’.  

Prior to jurors starting their deliberations on Tuesday, the judge in Weinstein’s case banned Rotunno from speaking to reporters until after the trial after the op-ed was brought to his attention.

Rotunno told the judge that the opinion piece, titled ‘Jurors in my client Harvey Weinstein’s case must look past the headlines’, was not intended to address the jury directly.

‘This is an op-ed about the jury system as a whole, about the criminal justice system as a whole,’ she said.   

Prosecutors said the article was ‘akin to jury tampering’. 

In the op-ed, Rotunno said jurors were asked to avoid all media coverage and outside influences but questioned whether anyone thought it was ‘realistically possible’ in a ‘high-profile case like Harvey Weinstein’s’.  

‘The mocking of Mr Weinstein’s walker, the unflattering courtroom-artist sketches of his body, the countless critical op-eds and biased stories, and the convenient timing of the politically-motivated charges in Los Angeles were all designed to pre-determine his guilt,’ she wrote.  

‘However, Mr Weinstein’s jurors have an obligation to themselves and their country, to base their verdict solely on the facts, testimony and evidence presented to them in the courtroom. 

‘I implore the members of this jury to do what they know is right and was expected of them from the moment they were called upon to serve their civic duty in a court of law. The facts are the facts. Harvey Weinstein is innocent. His fate hangs in the balance, and the world is watching.’