Harvey Weinstein attorneys said victim was financially motivated to lie during trial

Harvey Weinstein’s attorneys said the convicted Hollywood producer should get a new trial because one of the victims had a financial motivation to lie after it was revealed she was not “Al Pacino rich” as she claimed on the stand.

In a brief filed on Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court, Weinstein’s attorneys said Jane Doe 1 had a “clear motivation” to fib even though she testified to a grand jury that she “would never” file a civil suit against the producer.

“Here, the February 9, 2023 civil complaint filed by Jane Doe 1 has revealed that she intended to seek financial gain from Mr. Weinstein, and had a motivation to lie about her allegations during the trial and in front of the grand jury ,” the attorneys said in the affidavit. “On March 8, 2021, Jane Doe 1 testified that she would never sue Mr. Weinstein. But on February 9, 2023, she did exactly what she vowed to never do, She lied, and the defense should have been permitted to explore her financial motivation to lie at trial.”

Weinstein’s attorneys filed a motion for a new trial two weeks ago and argued they were not allowed to question Jane Doe 1 about her affair with another man, Pascal Vicedomini.

The attorneys claim Weinstein didn’t rape Jane Doe 1, an Italian model, at the Mr. C Hotel on February 2013 because she lied and was instead with Vicedomini. Jane Doe 1 was in Los Angeles to attend the Italia Film Festival, which was organized by Vicedomini.

During her testimony in December, Jane Doe 1 said Weinstein bullied his way into her room and then forced her to orally copulate him. She said Weinstein eventually pulled her into the bathroom where he raped her.

It took a jury 10 days of deliberation and 41 hours of debate before they reached a guilty verdict against Weinstein for forcible rape, forcible oral copulation and sexual penetration by foreign object of Jane Doe 1.

Weinstein was found not guilty of sexual battery by restraint of Jane Doe 3, a massage therapist.

A mistrial was declared on the other charges against Weinstein involving Jane Doe 2, who had been previously identified as actress and screenwriter Lauren Young, and Jane Doe 4— Jennifer Sibel Newsom— the wife of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

In their supplemental brief, Weinstein’s attorneys said Jane Doe 1 lied when she testified in September that she was “as rich as Al Pacino,” giving the jury a false impression that she didn’t have financial motivation to lie. The attorneys, however, claim Jane Doe 1 told prosecutors she was actually facing eviction and was unable to provide for her family around that time.

“The disclosure starkly contrasted with her trial testimony regarding being ‘Al Pacino rich,’” the attorneys argued. “Accordingly, the defense attempted to elicit Jane Doe 1’s financial distress on cross-examination but was prevented from doing so by the Court on relevance grounds.”

Prosecutors have yet to file a response to Weinstein’s motion but are expected to do so on Tuesday.

Jane Doe 1, whose identity has not been disclosed, is suing Weinstein for sexual battery, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. In her suit, she claimed Weinstein “exposed his penis” and forcibly raped her.

“After he was done raping her, he acted as if nothing out of the ordinary happened and left,” her attorneys wrote in the Feb. 9 complaint.