DAVID: VERDICT IS IN FORMER HOLLYWOOD FILM PRODUCER HARVEY

HOLLYWOOD FILM PRODUCER HARVEY WEINSTEIN FOUND GUILTY OF

WEINSTEIN FOUND GUILTY OF CRIMINAL SEX ACT IN 2006, THIRD

CRIMINAL SEX ACT IN 2006, THIRD DEGREE RAIN OF A WOMAN IN 2013,

DEGREE RAIN OF A WOMAN IN 2013, HE COULD FACE TO 25 YEARS IN

HE COULD FACE TO 25 YEARS IN PRISON, WEINSTEIN WAS

PRISON, WEINSTEIN WAS HANDCUFFED,TAIN EP TO TAKEN TO C

HANDCUFFED,TAIN EP TO TAKEN TO C UNTIL HIS SENTENCES ON MARCH 11,

UNTIL HIS SENTENCES ON MARCH 11, HE WAS ACQUITTED ON TWO MOST

HE WAS ACQUITTED ON TWO MOST SERIOUS CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST

SERIOUS CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST HIM.

HIM. EACH CARRIES LIFE IN PRISON.

EACH CARRIES LIFE IN PRISON. WE BRING IN FOX NEWS JUDICIAL

WE BRING IN FOX NEWS JUDICIAL ANALYST, JUDGE ANDREW

ANALYST, JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO.

NAPOLITANO. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. MANHATTAN PROSECUTOR, HE GOT TWO

MANHATTAN PROSECUTOR, HE GOT TWO OUT OF FIVE CONVICTIONS.

OUT OF FIVE CONVICTIONS. DO YOU THINK HE IS DISAPPOINTED.

DO YOU THINK HE IS DISAPPOINTED. >> I AM SURE HE IS.

>> I AM SURE HE IS. BUT YOU SAW FROM HIS PRESS

BUT YOU SAW FROM HIS PRESS CONFERENCE HE WILL TRY TO MAKE

CONFERENCE HE WILL TRY TO MAKE THE MOST OUT OF THIS HE WAS

THE MOST OUT OF THIS HE WAS DRAGGED KICKING AND SCREAMING.

DRAGGED KICKING AND SCREAMING. I EXAGGERATE TO BRING THIS --

I EXAGGERATE TO BRING THIS -- THESE CASES BEFORE A GRAND JURY.

THESE CASES BEFORE A GRAND JURY. BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN CAUGHT UP IN

BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN CAUGHT UP IN THIS VENT WHERE WEINSTEIN

THIS VENT WHERE WEINSTEIN LAWYERS HAVE BEEN MAKING

LAWYERS HAVE BEEN MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS TO HIM.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO HIM. HE KNEW THAT LAWYERS REPRESENTED

HE KNEW THAT LAWYERS REPRESENTED WEINSTEIN AT THE TIME.

WEINSTEIN AT THE TIME. DAVID: COMPROMISE.

DAVID: COMPROMISE. >> AND HE DROPPED CHANGES, NOW

>> AND HE DROPPED CHANGES, NOW THESE CHARGES, BUT -- NOT THESE

THESE CHARGES, BUT -- NOT THESE BUT OTHERS, HE WAS RED FACED

BUT OTHERS, HE WAS RED FACED OVER IT, HE SAID OKAY I'M NOT

OVER IT, HE SAID OKAY I'M NOT TAKING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

TAKING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANY LAWYERS, WHO ARE

FROM ANY LAWYERS, WHO ARE REPRESENTING PEOPLE THAT MY

REPRESENTING PEOPLE THAT MY OFFICE IS PROSECUTING, IN

OFFICE IS PROSECUTING, IN WEINSTEIN CASE IT WAS TOO LITTLE

WEINSTEIN CASE IT WAS TOO LITTLE TOO LATE, HIGH GOT A.

TOO LATE, HIGH GOT A. HE WAS USING, A NOVEL STATUTE IN

HE WAS USING, A NOVEL STATUTE IN NEW YORK.

NEW YORK. CALIFORNIA HAS SAME STATUTE, IF

CALIFORNIA HAS SAME STATUTE, IF YOU CAN PROVE A RAPE WENT STATE

YOU CAN PROVE A RAPE WENT STATE OUT OF LIMITATION AND PROVE

OUT OF LIMITATION AND PROVE SIMILAR BEHAVIOR AT ANY OTHER

SIMILAR BEHAVIOR AT ANY OTHER TIME, IN THIS CASE ALLEGED TO

TIME, IN THIS CASE ALLEGED TO OCCUR IN 19.

OCCUR IN 19. >>,1992, THEN YOU CAN FIND

>>,1992, THEN YOU CAN FIND THE DEFEND DEFENDANT GUILTY OF

THE DEFEND DEFENDANT GUILTY OF PREDATORY SEXUAL ACTIVITY, WHICH

PREDATORY SEXUAL ACTIVITY, WHICH HE FAILED AT.

HE FAILED AT. PROSECUTOR IN CALIFORNIA WILL

PROSECUTOR IN CALIFORNIA WILL ATTEMPT THE SAME CHARGE AGAINST

ATTEMPT THE SAME CHARGE AGAINST HIM.

HIM. >> JUDGE, THIS IS GARY.

>> JUDGE, THIS IS GARY. THIS DIRTBAG WILL APPEAL, DOES

THIS DIRTBAG WILL APPEAL, DOES IT MATTER THAT THE SERIOUS

IT MATTER THAT THE SERIOUS CHARGES HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY

CHARGES HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF, DOES THAT HELP HIM IN HIS

OF, DOES THAT HELP HIM IN HIS APPEAL OR IT IS SEPARATE?

APPEAL OR IT IS SEPARATE? >> I THINK IT IS IRRELEVANT.

>> I THINK IT IS IRRELEVANT. HE WAS ACQUITTED, THE STATE

HE WAS ACQUITTED, THE STATE CANNOT APPEAL THAT ACQUITTAL,

CANNOT APPEAL THAT ACQUITTAL, ONLY TWO APPEALABLE CHARGES WILL

ONLY TWO APPEALABLE CHARGES WILL BE TWO FOR WHICH HE WAS

BE TWO FOR WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED.

CONVICTED. AND QUITE FROM.

AND QUITE FROM. LY, THERE WERE ODD -- FRANKLY

LY, THERE WERE ODD -- FRANKLY THERE WERE ODD AT PECKS OF CASE,

THERE WERE ODD AT PECKS OF CASE, EVIDENCE OF GUILT IN THOSE CASES

EVIDENCE OF GUILT IN THOSE CASES RISING AND FALLS ON CREDIBILITY

RISING AND FALLS ON CREDIBILITY OF THE VICTIMS, THEY TOLERATED A

OF THE VICTIMS, THEY TOLERATED A WITHERING CROSS CROSS-EXAMINATIO

WITHERING CROSS CROSS-EXAMINATIO JURY BELIEVED THEM, I NEVER

JURY BELIEVED THEM, I NEVER HEARD OF A RAPE CASE,

HEARD OF A RAPE CASE, INVESTIGATED BY POLICE FOR 5

INVESTIGATED BY POLICE FOR 5 YEARS WHERE NOT A SINGLE COP

YEARS WHERE NOT A SINGLE COP TESTIFIED, IT BELIEVES THERE

TESTIFIED, IT BELIEVES THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A BREAK DOWN

MUST HAVE BEEN A BREAK DOWN BETWEEN PROSECUTOR OFFICE AND

BETWEEN PROSECUTOR OFFICE AND POLICE, THEY ALWAYS' POLICE TO

POLICE, THEY ALWAYS' POLICE TO SAY YES THAT IS WHAT SHE TOLD

SAY YES THAT IS WHAT SHE TOLD ME, AND THIS EVIDENCE COOPERATES

ME, AND THIS EVIDENCE COOPERATES THAT, UP IN OF THAT CAME IN.

THAT, UP IN OF THAT CAME IN. >> CERTIFICATE OF SORT OF SEEMS

>> CERTIFICATE OF SORT OF SEEMS TO TO SAY HE NEEDS TO BE

TO TO SAY HE NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED BUT MAYBE THERE WAS AND

PUNISHED BUT MAYBE THERE WAS AND CREDIBILITY ABOUT WITNESSES IS

CREDIBILITY ABOUT WITNESSES IS --

-- >> I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO

>> I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO INTERPRET, TRYING.

INTERPRET, TRYING. VERDICTS IN CRIMINAL CASES FOR

VERDICTS IN CRIMINAL CASES FOR 45 YEARS.

45 YEARS. SOMETIMES JURORS MAKE A

SOMETIMES JURORS MAKE A COMPROMISE, THEY KNOW WHAT THE

COMPROMISE, THEY KNOW WHAT THE PENALTY IS, THEY KNOW BY THE TWO

PENALTY IS, THEY KNOW BY THE TWO CONVICTIONTIONS AND 3 ACQUITTALS

CONVICTIONTIONS AND 3 ACQUITTALS HE FACES 25 YEARS IN JAIL, HE IS

HE FACES 25 YEARS IN JAIL, HE IS IN BAD HEALTH.

IN BAD HEALTH. THE MORAL, PERHAPS LEGAL EQUIV

THE MORAL, PERHAPS LEGAL EQUIV EQUIVALENT OF A LIFETIME.

EQUIVALENT OF A LIFETIME. >> WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU APPEAL

>> WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU APPEAL IT?

IT? IS HE OUT OF JAIL FOR THAT

IS HE OUT OF JAIL FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME?

PERIOD OF TIME? >> I THINK THAT SENTENCE WILL BE

>> I THINK THAT SENTENCE WILL BE BETWEEN 20 TO 25 YEARS, HE WILL

BETWEEN 20 TO 25 YEARS, HE WILL HAVE TO SERVE IF HE LIVES THAT

HAVE TO SERVE IF HE LIVES THAT LONG, 75 TO 80%.

LONG, 75 TO 80%. HE WILL NOT BE OUT OUT OF JAIL,

HE WILL NOT BE OUT OUT OF JAIL, WILL BE OUT OF A NEW YORK JAIL

WILL BE OUT OF A NEW YORK JAIL IN A HOLDING FACILITY IN LOS

IN A HOLDING FACILITY IN LOS ANGELES, THAT TRIAL STARTS IN

ANGELES, THAT TRIAL STARTS IN TWO MONTHS.

TWO MONTHS. >> WHAT IS THE APPEAL PART.

>> WHAT IS THE APPEAL PART. >> THE ERRORS THAT DEFENSE SAID

>> THE ERRORS THAT DEFENSE SAID THAT JUDGE MADE IN TRIAL HERE

THAT JUDGE MADE IN TRIAL HERE PRODUCED TWO CONVICTIONTIONS, IT

PRODUCED TWO CONVICTIONTIONS, IT WILL TWO YEARS BEFORE THE THE

WILL TWO YEARS BEFORE THE THE APPELLATE KMART.

APPELLATE KMART. COURT.

COURT. >> BECAUSE HE IS OLD AND FRAIL

>> BECAUSE HE IS OLD AND FRAIL HEALTH, 20 YEARS IT LIKE LIFE

HEALTH, 20 YEARS IT LIKE LIFE FOR SOMEONE LIKE THAT WITH THE

FOR SOMEONE LIKE THAT WITH THE JUDGE TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT IN

JUDGE TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT IN SENTENCE, THEN, CAN YOU EXPLAIN

SENTENCE, THEN, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT DIFFERENCE FIRST DEGREE AND

WHAT DIFFERENCE FIRST DEGREE AND THIRD DEGREE.

THIRD DEGREE. >> WITHOUT GETTING TOO GRAPHIC,

>> WITHOUT GETTING TOO GRAPHIC, ONE INVOLVES ENTERING THE BODY

ONE INVOLVES ENTERING THE BODY AND THE OTHER TOUCHING THE BODY,

AND THE OTHER TOUCHING THE BODY, BOTH AGAINST THE WILL WAS THE

BOTH AGAINST THE WILL WAS THE VICTIM.

VICTIM. HE THREW HIMSELF ON MERCY OF

HE THREW HIMSELF ON MERCY OF COURT THIS MORNING AND BEGGED,

COURT THIS MORNING AND BEGGED, THROUGH HIS LAWYERS TO STAY IN

THROUGH HIS LAWYERS TO STAY IN HIS HOME DURING SENTENCES

HIS HOME DURING SENTENCES PROCESS, THE COURT SAID NOW, I

PROCESS, THE COURT SAID NOW, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS JUDGE WILL

DON'T THINK THAT THIS JUDGE WILL SO MUCH MERS MERCY.