- Former model Kaja Sokola becomes emotional during cross-examination about private substance abuse journal
- Defense attorneys challenge Sokola’s credibility using 2015 Polish-language therapy records
- Weinstein faces criminal sex act charge from 2006 incident allegedly involving then-24-year-old Sokola
- Judge warns journal’s inclusion could backfire due to authenticity concerns
- Retrial follows overturned 2020 conviction involving #MeToo movement survivors
The Harvey Weinstein sexual assault retrial took a dramatic turn Tuesday as defense lawyers confronted accuser Kaja Sokola with handwritten journal entries from her participation in a substance abuse program. The 39-year-old psychotherapist, who testified last week about alleged assaults beginning when she was 16, argued the documents contained protected medical information never intended for court proceedings.
Sokola’s resistance intensified as attorney Michael Cibella referenced passages detailing five lifetime sexual assaults – none initially naming Weinstein. The defense highlighted an entry where “Harvey W” allegedly promised career assistance that never materialized, attempting to frame their interactions as transactional rather than criminal. Legal analysts note this strategy mirrors previous high-profile cases where consent becomes central to evidentiary disputes.
Judge Curtis Farber permitted limited journal references despite authenticity concerns, observing the defense’s gamble could alienate jurors. Prosecutors emphasized New York’s strict rules about medical records disclosure, with one stating: “This isn’t just about evidence – it’s about retraumatizing survivors through invasive documentation tactics.”
The retrial’s outcome may hinge on how effectively Manhattan prosecutors counter defense efforts to reframe #MeToo-era allegations as consensual exchanges. With Weinstein’s 2020 conviction overturned due to procedural errors, Sokola’s testimony represents one of three remaining actionable charges under New York’s extended statute of limitations for sex crimes.
Legal experts highlight three critical factors influencing this case: evolving standards for historical assault evidence, increased public scrutiny of celebrity trials, and ongoing debates about therapeutic records’ admissibility. As jury deliberations approach, both sides prepare for potential appeals centered on whether personal journals constitute relevant testimony or privileged communication.