In the digital age, the prevalence of unfounded allegations and sensational narratives can easily distort the truth. In the inaugural episode of her series, Candace Owens dives into the intricate tale of Miriam “Mimi” Haleyi, a former production assistant at The Weinstein Company, shedding light on her experiences during the tumultuous period surrounding the production of Project Runway. However, as with many narratives in the entertainment industry, there are layers of complexity that warrant a closer examination. In this blog post, we will dissect the claims made by Owens, verifying the accuracy of her assertions and exploring the actual events surrounding Haleyi’s involvement with the company. Join us as we sift through facts and fictions to build a clearer understanding of this high-profile case.

Find the according transcript on TRNSCRBR

All information as of 03/09/2025

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

Mimi Haley did not physically resist during the second encounter with Harvey Weinstein, which she recounted in the courtroom.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Mimi Haley did not physically resist during the second encounter with Harvey Weinstein, we can examine the available testimony and reports from his trial.

**Claim Evaluation:**

Mimi Haley testified during Harvey Weinstein's trial about two encounters with him. The first involved an alleged assault where Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her, despite her verbal resistance, including saying "no, no, no" and attempting to get off the bed[2][3]. In the second encounter, which occurred a few weeks later at a Tribeca hotel, Haley stated that she went numb and did not physically resist as Weinstein pulled her toward the bed and forced intercourse with her[1][4].

**Evidence from Testimony:**

1. **First Encounter:** During the first alleged assault, Haley verbally resisted and tried to get away but was held down by Weinstein[2][3].

2. **Second Encounter:** In the second incident, Haley testified that she "didn't resist" physically. She explained that she went numb and laid still during the encounter[1][4]. This lack of physical resistance was partly due to her feeling overwhelmed and powerless in the situation.

**Conclusion:**

The claim that Mimi Haley did not physically resist during the second encounter with Harvey Weinstein is supported by her own testimony. She stated that she did not resist physically during the second incident, which aligns with her account of feeling numb and powerless[1][4]. This highlights the complexities of sexual assault cases, where victims may not always be able to physically resist due to fear, shock, or other psychological factors.

**References:**

– [1] ABC News: Mimi Haleyi details sexual assault allegation in Harvey Weinstein trial testimony.
– [2] CBS News: Harvey Weinstein Trial: Former Production Assistant Whose Claims Led to Charges Testifies.
– [3] Sky News: 'I'm being raped': Weinstein accuser details alleged assault.
– [4] Los Angeles Times: At Harvey Weinstein trial, Mimi Haley's testimony turns into daylong battle over consent.

Citations

Claim

Harvey Weinstein's trial included testimonies that were criticized for lacking evidence to convict him.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Harvey Weinstein's trial included testimonies criticized for lacking evidence to convict him, we need to examine the legal proceedings and expert critiques surrounding his case.

## Overview of the Trial

Harvey Weinstein faced numerous allegations of sexual assault and rape, with over 80 women accusing him of misconduct since the initial reports in 2017[5]. In his New York trial, six women testified against him, including Miriam "Mimi" Haleyi and Jessica Mann, whose testimonies were central to the charges[5].

## Critique of Testimonies

The New York Court of Appeals later overturned Weinstein's 2020 rape conviction, citing that the trial court had erred by admitting testimonies of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts. These testimonies were deemed to serve no material non-propensity purpose and portrayed Weinstein in a highly prejudicial light[2][4]. This decision suggests that some testimonies were indeed criticized for lacking relevance to the specific charges and for potentially influencing the jury's perception of Weinstein's character.

## Legal Expert Commentary

Legal experts and judges have critiqued the use of "prior bad acts" testimony in Weinstein's trial. The Court of Appeals held that such testimony should only be admitted if it serves a material non-propensity purpose, such as establishing intent or a pattern of behavior relevant to the charged crimes[2]. In Weinstein's case, the court found that the admission of these testimonies was erroneous and prejudicial[2][4].

## Conclusion

The claim that Harvey Weinstein's trial included testimonies criticized for lacking evidence to convict him is supported by the legal critiques and the Court of Appeals' decision. The court's ruling that the testimonies of uncharged acts were improperly admitted highlights concerns about the relevance and impact of such evidence on the trial's outcome[2][4]. However, it is also important to note that many of the allegations against Weinstein were based on strong testimonial evidence from complainants who described violent and non-consensual acts[3][5].

In summary, while some testimonies were criticized for their lack of direct relevance to the charges, the core allegations against Weinstein were supported by substantial evidence from the complainants themselves. The legal system's handling of such cases underscores the complexities of balancing the need to present a defendant's pattern of behavior with the risk of prejudicing the jury.

Citations

Claim

Harvey Weinstein was diagnosed with Fournier's gangrene in 1999, which required surgery that resulted in noticeable scarring and tissue removal.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Harvey Weinstein was diagnosed with Fournier's gangrene in 1999, which required surgery resulting in noticeable scarring and tissue removal, we must consider both medical literature on Fournier's gangrene and available information on Weinstein's medical history and court proceedings.

## Fournier's Gangrene Overview

Fournier's gangrene is a serious bacterial infection affecting the genital and perineal areas. It can lead to severe tissue damage, including necrosis of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, and requires prompt medical attention, often involving surgical debridement or removal of affected tissue[3]. The infection is more common in individuals with underlying health conditions such as diabetes or immunocompromised states.

## Harvey Weinstein's Medical History and Court Proceedings

During Harvey Weinstein's trial, it was revealed that he underwent surgery in 1999 due to Fournier's gangrene. This surgery involved the removal of his testicles, which were then relocated to his inner thighs, and some scrotal tissue was removed[2][5]. The surgery resulted in noticeable scarring, which became a point of discussion during the trial as victims testified about his abnormal genitalia[1][5].

## Evidence and Validation

1. **Medical Condition**: Fournier's gangrene is a recognized medical condition that can necessitate surgical intervention to remove infected tissue, aligning with the claim of tissue removal and scarring[3].

2. **Weinstein's Surgery**: Reports from Weinstein's trial confirm that he underwent surgery for Fournier's gangrene in 1999, which involved the removal of his testicles and some scrotal tissue[2][5].

3. **Court Testimony**: The description of Weinstein's genitalia by victims and the presentation of photos as evidence in court support the claim of noticeable scarring and anatomical changes resulting from the surgery[1][5].

## Conclusion

Based on the available information, the claim that Harvey Weinstein was diagnosed with Fournier's gangrene in 1999 and underwent surgery resulting in noticeable scarring and tissue removal is supported by reports from his trial and descriptions of his medical condition. While specific medical records are not publicly available, the consistency of reports from court proceedings and the nature of Fournier's gangrene as a condition requiring surgical intervention validate the claim.

**Validation Status**: Validated based on available reports and medical understanding of Fournier's gangrene.

Citations

Claim

Harvey Weinstein was sentenced in 2020 to 23 years in prison for his crimes, including 20 years for criminal sexual assault in the first degree.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Harvey Weinstein was sentenced in 2020 to 23 years in prison for his crimes, including 20 years for criminal sexual assault in the first degree, we need to examine the details of his sentencing and the charges he was convicted of.

### Claim Evaluation

1. **Sentence Length**: Harvey Weinstein was indeed sentenced to 23 years in prison in 2020. This sentence was handed down on March 11, 2020, following his conviction on February 24, 2020, for third-degree rape and first-degree criminal sexual act[2][3].

2. **Charges and Sentencing Breakdown**: The claim specifies that 20 years of the sentence were for criminal sexual assault in the first degree. However, the actual breakdown of his conviction was for third-degree rape and first-degree criminal sexual act. There is no specific mention of a 20-year sentence for criminal sexual assault in the first degree in the available reports. The jury found him guilty of third-degree rape and first-degree criminal sexual act but not guilty of two predatory sexual assault counts and first-degree rape[2][3].

3. **Overturning of Conviction**: It's also important to note that Weinstein's New York conviction was overturned on April 25, 2024, by the New York Court of Appeals due to procedural errors, specifically the admission of testimony from other alleged victims not directly related to the charges[1][3]. Despite this, Weinstein remains in prison due to his separate conviction in Los Angeles[1][3].

### Conclusion

The claim that Harvey Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in prison is accurate, but the specific breakdown of the sentence into 20 years for criminal sexual assault in the first degree is not supported by the available information. Weinstein was convicted of third-degree rape and first-degree criminal sexual act, and his New York conviction was later overturned on appeal.

### Evidence

– **Sentencing**: Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in prison on March 11, 2020[2][3].
– **Charges**: Convicted of third-degree rape and first-degree criminal sexual act[2][3].
– **Overturning of Conviction**: The New York Court of Appeals overturned his conviction on April 25, 2024[1][3].

Citations

Claim

Mimi Haley claims that Harvey Weinstein forcibly performed a sex act on her during an encounter in July 2006.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Mimi Haley's Allegations Against Harvey Weinstein

The claim that Mimi Haley asserts Harvey Weinstein forcibly performed a sex act on her during an encounter in July 2006 can be verified through multiple reliable sources, including court documents and trial transcripts.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Testimony and Court Records**: Mimi Haley testified in court that Harvey Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her at his Soho apartment in July 2006. She described the incident in detail, stating that she tried to resist but felt trapped and decided to endure the assault, fearing it was the safest option at the time[1][2][4].

2. **Legal Proceedings**: Weinstein was charged with forcibly performing a sex act on Haley, among other allegations. Although he denied all wrongdoing, claiming any sexual encounters were consensual, Haley's testimony was a crucial part of the prosecution's case[1][2].

3. **Public Statements and Interviews**: After the trial, Haley and her lawyer, Gloria Allred, discussed the case on "The View," highlighting the challenges faced by victims of sexual assault and the importance of speaking out[3].

### Verification Through Court Documents and Trial Transcripts

The allegations made by Mimi Haley are supported by court documents and trial transcripts. These documents detail the events leading up to the alleged assault and the subsequent interactions between Haley and Weinstein. The trial transcripts provide a detailed account of Haley's testimony, including her emotional recounting of the assault and her reasons for maintaining contact with Weinstein afterward[5].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence from court testimony, legal proceedings, and public statements, the claim that Mimi Haley alleges Harvey Weinstein forcibly performed a sex act on her in July 2006 is verified. These allegations were central to the charges against Weinstein and were extensively documented in court records and trial transcripts.

### Additional Considerations

The #MeToo movement has highlighted the complexities of sexual assault allegations, including issues of memory, motive, and the pressures faced by accusers. The case against Weinstein, including Haley's allegations, underscores these challenges and the importance of a thorough legal process in addressing such claims.

Citations

Claim

Harvey Weinstein received a 20-year prison sentence based on the testimony of Miriam.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Harvey Weinstein's Prison Sentence and Miriam Haley's Testimony

The claim states that Harvey Weinstein received a 20-year prison sentence based on the testimony of Miriam Haley. To evaluate this claim, we need to examine the details of Weinstein's sentencing and the role of Miriam Haley's testimony in the trial.

### Harvey Weinstein's Sentencing Details

Harvey Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in prison in New York for his convictions on two felony counts: rape in the third degree and a criminal sex act in the first degree[2][4]. Specifically, he received 20 years for the criminal sex act and three years for the rape[2][4]. This sentencing occurred on March 11, 2020.

### Miriam Haley's Testimony

Miriam Haley, a former production assistant, testified that Weinstein forced oral sex on her in 2006 at his Manhattan apartment[2][4]. Her testimony was crucial in the trial, as it directly contributed to Weinstein's conviction for the criminal sex act[2][4].

### Claim Verification

The claim that Weinstein received a 20-year prison sentence based on Miriam Haley's testimony is partially accurate. While Haley's testimony was significant, Weinstein's total sentence was 23 years, with 20 years specifically for the criminal sex act involving Haley[2][4]. Therefore, the claim is not entirely precise, as it does not account for the full context of Weinstein's sentencing.

### Conclusion

In conclusion, while Miriam Haley's testimony was pivotal in securing Weinstein's conviction for a criminal sex act, the claim that he received a 20-year sentence solely based on her testimony is incomplete. The 20-year component of his sentence was directly related to Haley's case, but the total sentence was 23 years, reflecting both the rape and criminal sex act convictions.

### Evidence and Citations

– **Sentencing Details**: Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in prison, with 20 years for the criminal sex act and three years for rape[2][4].
– **Miriam Haley's Testimony**: Haley testified about being forced into oral sex by Weinstein in 2006, contributing to his conviction for a criminal sex act[2][4].
– **Claim Accuracy**: The claim is partially accurate but lacks full context, as it does not mention the total sentence or the additional rape conviction[2][4].

Citations

Claim

Harvey Weinstein was found guilty in a court of law.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **Harvey Weinstein was found guilty in a court of law** is accurate based on historical legal proceedings. However, recent developments have altered the status of his convictions.

### Initial Convictions

On February 24, 2020, Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of **criminal sexual assault** and **third-degree rape** in a New York City trial. He was acquitted on three other counts, including predatory sexual assault and first-degree rape[2].

### Reversal of Conviction

In April 2024, New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, overturned Weinstein's convictions. The court ruled that the trial court had erred by admitting testimony about uncharged prior bad acts and by allowing Weinstein to be cross-examined on these acts if he chose to testify. The court determined that these errors were not harmless and ordered a new trial[1][3].

### Current Status

As of now, Weinstein's New York convictions have been overturned, and the case is set for a retrial. His legal team is also planning to appeal his California convictions[1].

### Conclusion

While Harvey Weinstein was initially found guilty in a court of law, his New York convictions have been overturned due to legal errors. The case remains ongoing with a new trial scheduled, and his California convictions are also under appeal.

### Evidence and Sources

– **Initial Conviction**: Weinstein was convicted of criminal sexual assault and third-degree rape in New York City on February 24, 2020[2].
– **Reversal of Conviction**: New York's Court of Appeals overturned his convictions in April 2024, citing errors in the admission of evidence and cross-examination procedures[1][3].
– **Current Legal Status**: Weinstein's case is set for a retrial in New York, and he plans to appeal his California convictions[1].

Citations

Claim

Miriam was successful in her allegations against Harvey Weinstein during the trial.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Miriam Haley was successful in her allegations against Harvey Weinstein during the trial, we need to examine the trial outcomes and verdicts related to her testimony.

## Background and Trial Outcomes

Miriam Haley testified in the New York trial of Harvey Weinstein, alleging that he forced oral sex on her in 2006. Her testimony was crucial as she was one of the two main witnesses behind the charges in the New York case[1][2]. In February 2020, the jury found Weinstein guilty of a criminal sexual act in the first degree, which included Haley's allegations, and third-degree rape against another accuser, Jessica Mann[1][3].

## Success of Allegations

The guilty verdict on the criminal sexual act charge directly related to Haley's testimony indicates that her allegations were successful in contributing to Weinstein's conviction. Haley expressed relief and gratitude that the jury believed her account, highlighting the significance of her testimony in securing a conviction[1].

However, the trial also highlighted complexities and challenges faced by accusers. Haley's interactions with Weinstein after the alleged assault were scrutinized during cross-examination, which raised questions about her actions and motivations[2]. Despite these challenges, her testimony played a pivotal role in the trial's outcome.

## Reversal of Conviction

In 2024, the New York Court of Appeals reversed Weinstein's 2020 conviction due to procedural errors, allowing for a new trial[3][5]. This reversal does not negate the initial success of Haley's allegations but rather underscores the legal complexities and challenges in such cases.

## Conclusion

Miriam Haley's allegations against Harvey Weinstein were successful in the context of the initial trial, as her testimony contributed to Weinstein's conviction on a criminal sexual act charge. However, the legal process is ongoing, and the reversal of the conviction highlights the challenges and uncertainties in such cases.

In summary, while Haley's testimony was instrumental in securing a conviction at the time, the legal landscape surrounding Weinstein's case continues to evolve.

Citations

We believe in transparency and accuracy. That’s why this blog post was verified with CheckForFacts.
Start your fact-checking journey today and help create a smarter, more informed future!