like I said, I don't know the details of the case. I wasn't in the courtroom. Jurors are given explicit instructions at the beginning of the trial, and again before they go to deliberation. The verdict is supposed to only be based
only on the evidence presented at the trial. Jurors are expected to not only be impartial, having been selected through an often exhaustive voir dire process where the judge and both sides are allowed to question and dismiss potential jurors, but also are not allowed to talk to anyone about the case, or consider any information obtained outside of the courtroom, or evidence presented that the judge instructs them to disregard. In high profile cases they are often sequestered to avoid jury tampering, which includes media consumption. They aren't even allowed to talk to each other or anyone else about the case until it goes to deliberation. They are also
supposed to pass their verdict solely on the veracity of the charges, as evidenced by the prosecution and defense presented, and not make a political statement in passing their judgment (I say
supposed to, because jury nullification is a thing, but it is discouraged). And if the defendant opts not to testify in their own defense, they are also not allowed to let that affect their decision.
The judge has discretion over what evidence will be allowed to be presented to the jury, upon review. Sometimes certain facts will be conceded/made clear at the beginning of a trial that they are not in dispute. Sounds like it could be something challenged upon appeal if they feel that the content of the emails were imperative to the defense or if the judge was incorrect to block their contents. There are many steps to bringing a case to trial, and as
@mdchachi mentioned, there are many opportunities to appeal, as I'm sure he will. Due process is pretty exhaustive. The burden is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but note that I did say evidence and/or testimony: testimony under oath is considered evidence, and if the jury unanimously finds witness testimony credible, that alone can be used to convict. This is nothing new.
It's possible for the judge to be prejudiced, or for the jury to be stacked, tampered with or contaminated in various ways, or for them to ignore the instructions given to them. It's also possible for witnesses to perjure themselves on the stand, or even for evidence to be manufactured or planted. The system isn't perfect and many aspects of it are subject to strategy, but the verdict is based on the sum of the arguments and evidence presented, and there are mechanisms in place that are supposed to help keep the system honest, like recusals, mistrials, and appeals.
I'd expect a high-profile defendant like Weinstein to have the best representation available to him, which probably included attorneys who specialized in jury selection, making statements and presenting evidence, and questioning and cross-examining witnesses. And in this round at least, despite his resources, strategies, and expert counsel, he was still found unanimously guilty by seven men and five women. This may not be the last we've heard of this case, but I consider that significant. Without evidence that his due process was violated, I don't feel compelled to dismiss that outright as the result of some kind of new scary paradigm, as you seem to be. This is because I've been in the jury box, more than once, and I saw from the inside how seriously the process is taken.
Have I sufficiently responded for you to answer my questions? If I might pose another, if someone is in fact guilty of a single crime, and is convicted for that crime, does it matter if there were other untrue or less credible allegations made? If someone makes an allegation that turns out to be untrue, is that evidence of innocence on other charges, whether or not the untrue allegations made it into the courtroom? I could certainly imagine a defense attorney making that argument, but do you think it holds water?
