The #MeToo movement's influence in courtrooms appears to be waning as defense teams adopt more aggressive tactics against sexual assault accusers. Harvey Weinstein's third trial for raping Jessica Mann ended in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked 9-3 for acquittal, highlighting how the once-powerful 'believe women' principle faces systematic challenges.

Defense attorneys increasingly portray accusers as opportunists seeking financial gain rather than victims seeking justice. In Weinstein's case, lawyers highlighted his consensual relationship with Mann after the alleged assault, while questioning her motives. Similar strategies emerged in Sean Combs' trial, where defense counsel argued accusers faced 'regret, not rape.'

Legal experts identify an unintended consequence: heightened scrutiny of accusers' credibility and financial motives. The Alexander brothers' sex-trafficking conviction stands as a notable exception where jurors rejected defense narratives about consensual encounters. Still, three mistrials for Weinstein demonstrate how aggressive defense tactics can undermine #MeToo's initial courtroom momentum.

The pattern suggests a backlash has taken root in jury deliberations, with defense teams successfully exploiting reasonable doubt around consent and motive. This shift threatens the movement's core premise that women's testimony deserves automatic credibility in sexual assault cases.