Addressing the False Statements Circulating About Our Client’s Case

Please find our firm’s earlier statement about yesterday’s partial dismissal in the Harvey Weinstein criminal case here. Due to the defamatory statements circulating about our client, Lucia Evans, let us set a few things straight. 

Lucia Evans has never said anything whether under oath during her grand jury testimony or in later writings, that contradicts her claim that Harvey Weinstein forcefully sexually assaulted her. She has remained 100% steadfast to that assertion for the last 15 years and has never deviated from it. 

The “draft email” referred to by the District Attorney is a Word document that Lucia had created — but never sent — years ago about her sexual assault. In no way, shape or form does it contradict Lucia’s allegation that Harvey Weinstein forcefully sexually assaulted her. It only corroborates that fact. 

With regard to the so-called contradictory statement referred to in the D.A.’s disclosure letter, the statement was provided by a witness who was especially supportive of Lucia during and after the publication of the New Yorker article in October 2017. This witness was with Lucia the night she met Harvey Weinstein 14 years ago. This witness was not a witness to the sexual assault — which occurred the next and last time Lucia met Mr. Weinstein. Nor was she an outcry witness. 

When Lucia decided to participate in the New Yorker piece this witness was eager to corroborate and specifically told Lucia she was familiar with the fact-checking process because she herself was in the magazine industry. 

From our understanding, it was not until this witness was being questioned by law enforcement — with a lawyer present — that her story changed. We do not know why, but we entirely dispute her evolving version. The DA’s failure to interview this witness until after the indictment is the DA’s fault. 

The DA is aware of the robust evidence, including witnesses, that seriously undermine the witness’ credibility and recollection of events. Yet, the DA consented to dismissal prior to investigating this evidence. The discrepancies between the two accounts — Lucia’s and this witness’ — does not justify dumping the charge.

The purpose of juries is to decide the truth. Court cases always have witnesses and evidence that are not 100% flattering to a person’s case. That’s the point of trials — to let the jury decide the truth, but if a victim never has her day in court, that can’t happen.

We know Lucia is telling the truth.

The combination of the DA’s clumsy language in their September 12th disclosure letter talking about inconsistent details, combined with the severity of yesterday’s action — to dump Lucia’s claims — has made people susceptible to Mr. Brafman’s false narrative that Lucia was lying or falsely accusing. This could not be further from the truth. 

And in my office a few days before the dismissal hearing, the ADA Joan Illuzzi reiterated that none of this has to do with her doubt in Lucia’s story.

The DA consented to the dismissal because they made serious mistakes in their failure to investigate evidence and witnesses properly and timely. This has nothing to do with Lucia, who gave up everything to participate in this criminal investigation.

The DA had all the evidence and corroborating witnesses for months, but because they seriously mishandled that evidence and witnesses, they dismissed her claim to save face. Now the DA is cowardly standing to the side as Weinstein’s attorney predictably had defamed her as an alleged perjurist and opportunist. This whole trope of calling accusers liars and threatening them with criminal charges is the stuff of old misogynist lawyering aimed at getting women to STFU and disappear. Not going away. 

Related posts

Leave your comment Required fields are marked *
We are not your attorney. Nothing on our website, blog, or social media should be interpreted as legal advice or the creation of an attorney-client relationship. You should not act or rely on the basis of information on this site without seeking the advice of an attorney. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please keep in mind that the success of any legal matter depends on the unique circumstances of each case: we cannot guarantee particular results for future clients based on successes we have achieved in past legal matters.