Harvey Weinstein’s lawyers on Wednesday managed to throw a wrench, if only briefly, into the latest criminal trial against the disgraced movie titan and convicted rapist by showcasing an ugly dispute between a woman accusing him of assault and her former friend.
In essence, a woman who prosecutors planned to call to corroborate a former actress’ allegations that Weinstein sexually assaulted her refuses to take the stand—because she claims the accuser and her husband stole thousands of dollars from her.
The strange twist came before the jurors were brought into the courtroom on Wednesday in the second week of the trial in which Weinstein is accused of sexually assaulting five Los Angeles women between 2003 and 2014.
ADVERTISEMENT
The sideshow began when Weinstein’s lawyers told Judge Lisa Lench that they had received word from the prosecution Tuesday night that “there’s a severe problem” with one of their witnesses.
Defense attorney Mark Werksman explained that prosecutors had planned to call Christina Zweers to the stand to corroborate the testimony of Kelly Sipherd, who testified on Monday that Weinstein had sexually assaulted her twice in Toronto over the span of two decades. Specifically, she said Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her, inserted his fingers into her vagina, and put his penis in her vagina “for a few seconds” inside a hotel room in 1991.
Seventeen years later, in 2008, Sipherd told jurors, Weinstein masturbated in front of her in another hotel room—before ejaculating “orange sperm [that] didn’t look normal.”
Werksman said his team had received an email chain between Zweers and Assistant Deputy District Attorney Paul Thompson, which he claimed contained “a scathing and blistering indictment of the character” of Sipherd. Sipherd has been identified in court as Kelly S., but her lawyer previously confirmed that she can be identified by her full name. Her lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.
“This allegation is that over a period of 10 years Kelly and her husband looted $10,000 from this former friend of Kelly, who is going to be a witness,” Werksman said, arguing that if “Zweers had shown up in court, we would be able to elicit her testimony about the honesty and truthfulness and moral turpitude of Kelly S.”
While Zweers’ claims of “theft, embezzlement, elder abuse and fraud” by Sipherd and her husband are merely allegations that do not pertain to Weinstein's trial—and Sipherd has not been charged with any crime—the former Hollywood producer’s lawyers went for the jugular.
In essence, Weinstein’s defense lawyer argued that Zweers’ claim should effectively render Sipherd’s testimony moot.
“[Zweers] basically says I don’t want to have anything to do with this,” Werksman told the judge.
As a “prior bad acts witness,” Sipherd’s allegations against Weinstein are not a part of his criminal charges—but are meant to bolster the prosecution’s argument that he exhibited a pattern of predatory behavior. Weinstein has pleaded not guilty to almost a dozen charges against him in the L.A. trial, which comes two years after he was sentenced to 23 years in prison on similar crimes in New York.
Weinstein’s lawyers on Wednesday also suggested that another witness set to corroborate Sipherd’s story had “flaked” on taking the stand, as well.
Werksman asked prosecutors to reveal correspondence with the second witness to see if she also refused to testify—and stressed that Sipherd “should be forced to come back to court and face… impeachment.” In a criminal trial, impeaching a witness is the process of calling into question the accuracy and credibility of their testimony. Sometimes, impeachment results in a judge ruling a witness’ testimony should be stricken from the record.
The defense lawyer went on to say he would also accept Sipherd’s testimony being struck from the record. “This is the danger of the [prior bad act witnesses], they bring in these 30-year-old complainants without vetting them,” he said.
Prosecutors naturally pushed back on Werksman’s harsh critique.
Deputy District Attorney Marlene Martinez said that Zweers’ email and allegations were not relevant to the case against Weinstein. She added that her understanding was that Zweers’ anger against Sipherd stemmed from a loan that the former actress had not yet paid back in full—noting that the claim was not one of fraud.
“These are just allegations. There is no proof of anything. The defense would have to have some sort of witness or even evidence to bring this up,” Martinez said. “If Kelly were to return, these would be just hearsay statements.”
Zweers is “upset and there’s been a falling out between the two. I just think she’s angry and upset,” the prosecutor added, indicating that Zweers has never previously mentioned “that any of this affected the statements that she gave initially.”
Ultimately, Judge Lench ruled that she was not going to force the prosecution to turn over additional email communications with witnesses—but stressed that she still needs to think about whether the defense will be “allowed impeachment based on this information.”
