FORMER MOVIE PRODUCER Harvey Weinstein has been convicted of one of the charges in his sex crimes retrial – but acquitted of another, and jurors were unable to reach a verdict on a third charge.

The split verdict on Wednesday meted out a measure of vindication to his accusers and prosecutors – but also to Weinstein – after the landmark case was thrown into limbo.

Weinstein’s initial conviction five years ago seemed to cement the downfall of one of Hollywood’s most powerful men in a pivotal moment for the #MeToo movement.

But that conviction was overturned last year, and the case was sent back for retrial in the same Manhattan courthouse.

This time, a majority-female jury convicted the former studio boss of forcibly subjecting one woman to a criminal sex act in 2006.

But jurors acquitted Weinstein of another criminal sex act charge from 2006.

And jurors were to continue deliberating on a charge that he raped another woman in 2013.

Under New York law, the third-degree rape charge carries a lesser penalty than the first-degree criminal sex act offence.

Weinstein, 73, denies sexually assaulting or raping anyone.

Jury deliberations had teetered on Wednesday as the foreperson again requested to speak to the judge about “a situation” he found troubling.

The man, who complained on Monday that other jurors were pushing people to change their minds and talking about information beyond the charges, was being questioned in private, at his request.

While the jury was in court to hear the answer to an earlier request to re-hear the text of a rape law, the foreperson signalled to Judge Curtis Farber that he wanted to talk.

“He said words to the effect of, ‘I can’t go back in there with the other jurors’,” Judge Farber explained later.

The foreperson was sent to wait in a separate room, where he penned a note saying: “I need to talk to you about a situation.”

When briefly brought into court, the foreperson said he wanted to speak in private. He, the judge, prosecutors and Weinstein’s lawyers then went behind closed doors.

The discussion was closed to the press and public, but Farber later said the foreperson had expressed that he did not want to change his position – whatever it may be – and was being bullied.

“He did indicate that at least one other juror made comments to the effect of, ‘I’ll meet you outside one day’, and there’s yelling and screaming,” the judge said.

Weinstein’s lawyer Arthur Aidala characterised the foreperson’s concerns more severely, saying that the man had said he was concerned for his safety after his fellow panellist talked about meeting him outside and added, “you don’t know me”.

“I don’t think the court is protecting this juror. Period,” Mr Aidala said, going on to ask for a mistrial.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, however, said the foreperson had not seemed afraid or apprehensive, just “stubborn”.

“He said he’d made up his mind, he didn’t want to change it, and people were pressuring him to change it. That’s what jury deliberations involve,” the prosecutor said.

The episode was the latest sign of strain among the jurors. On Friday, one of them asked to be excused because he felt another member of the group was being treated unfairly.

Weinstein’s lawyers asked unsuccessfully for a mistrial then, and again after the foreperson expressed his concerns on Monday. The jury kept deliberating and went through Tuesday without sending any more messages about interpersonal tensions.

The seven female and five male jurors started their fifth day of deliberations on Wednesday by re-hearing accuser Jessica Mann’s testimony that he raped her in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013. The group wrapped up Tuesday’s deliberations by asking to revisit that testimony.

Some jurors appeared to take fresh notes on Wednesday, while others sat impassively as court stenographers read aloud the requested parts of Ms Mann’s days-long testimony. The jury had already reheard some of the passages last week.

Weinstein, 73, pleaded not guilty to raping Mann and to forcing oral sex on two other women, Mimi Haley and Kaja Sokola.

The Oscar-winning producer and former Hollywood powerbroker maintains that he never sexually assaulted or raped anyone, and his lawyers portrayed his accusers as opportunists who accepted his advances because they wanted a leg up in the entertainment world.