Sexually explicit photos filled a Downtown Los Angeles courtroom screen as opening arguments began in the long-awaited trial of producer Eric Weinberg, who faces life in prison if convicted on charges tied to alleged assaults during private photo shoots.
Seven women say Weinberg sexually assaulted them in connection with those sessions. Prosecutors and defense lawyers offered sharply different readings of the same images, turning the jury’s first look at the case into a contest over consent, fear, and what the camera actually captured.
Weinberg, 66, produced nearly 100 episodes of “Scrubs” and wrote for “Californication.” The New York Post reported that a jury of eight men and four women is hearing the case as he sits through the display of graphic photos from shoots at his Los Feliz home between 2014 and 2019.
The images show women in various states of undress. Some pose provocatively. Some smile. Defense attorney Phillip Cohen told jurors those frames matter because they show the encounters as Weinberg experienced them.
Cohen put the point in plain terms for the panel.
"You’re seeing what he’s seeing,"
Prosecutors answered that smiles and continued posing do not equal consent. They told the jury one woman, Kyra, appears relaxed in 2014 photos even as she claims Weinberg assaulted her. Prosecutors said Kyra is known to smile when she is “nervous.”
The legal stakes are severe. Weinberg faces 23 charges, including sexual battery and forcible rape. He was arrested in October 2022, initially freed on $5 million bail, then ordered back into custody later that month after additional charges. He has been held in LA County Jail since the judge revoked bail.
Opening statements sketched a pattern. Weinberg allegedly approached women at everyday spots such as Starbucks and Ralphs, introduced himself as a Hollywood producer and amateur photographer, and invited them to his Los Feliz residence. Shoots moved through the backyard, pool area, bedroom, and upstairs hallway, according to the account laid out for jurors.
Prosecutor Ariel Anson focused on a March 23, 2017 session with a woman identified as Johanna. Prosecutors said she had agreed to “tasteful nude photographs.” Anson told the jury the tone changed as the shoot continued upstairs.
Anson described Weinberg moving in and commenting on Johanna’s body as the encounter shifted.
"Weinberg gets closer, he says he likes her breasts, and she notices a change in his eyes. They look like predator eyes,"
Photos from that shoot showed Weinberg’s hand around her neck. Prosecutors also told jurors, “At the beginning of the shoot there were no red flags,” framing the alleged turn as something that developed after the session was already underway.
Another woman, Avian, appears in backyard topless photos. Prosecutors said she continued posing half-naked after an alleged assault and that her face carried “micro-expressions.” Anson told the jury those expressions were not performance for the lens.
"She was trying to signal to the camera that she’s not ok,"
Avian is expected to testify, prosecutors said. The state is asking jurors to treat body language and later accounts as evidence of non-consent, not as proof the women were willing participants throughout.
Cohen’s opening pressed the opposite theory. He argued the women’s conduct, words, and actions showed consent. He told jurors there was no sign Weinberg understood anyone to be afraid in the moment the photos were taken.
"There’s not one indication that Weinberg knew of anyone’s fear,"
When prosecutors pointed to subtle facial cues, Cohen challenged the idea that Weinberg could have read them as distress.
"Does he know her micro expressions?"
The defense also walked the jury through contact details Weinberg shared. Cohen said the producer did not hide behind throwaway phones, fake emails, or false addresses. He told women where he worked and directed them to his real home.
"All of the information he exchanges in this case leads to Mr. Weinberg. No fake address to his house, no disposable phones, no fake email addresses, he tells them where he works,"
Cohen argued that trail was “not a sign of a rapist.” The defense displayed a graphic image showing Weinberg’s hand and an alleged victim’s hand on intimate parts of her naked body, presenting it as visual support for a consensual encounter rather than force.
Weinberg watched the presentation in a blue suit, tie, and glasses. He has not been quoted in the opening-arguments coverage as speaking in court. His position, through counsel, is that every encounter at issue was consensual.
The case remains at the accusation and proof stage. No verdict has been reached. Jurors have been shown photos and given dueling narratives about what those photos mean. They have not yet been asked for a finding of guilt or innocence.
What is established in the public record described to the panel is procedural and severe. Twenty-three counts are on the table, among them sexual battery and forcible rape. A conviction could bring a life sentence. Bail started at $5 million after the October 2022 arrest, then disappeared when a judge revoked it the same month following additional charges. Weinberg has remained in LA County Jail from that point forward.
The shoots at the center of the dispute span 2014 to 2019. Kyra’s photos date to 2014. Johanna’s session is pinned to March 23, 2017. Avian’s backyard images are part of the same cluster of home shoots prosecutors say turned criminal. Seven women in total allege sexual assault tied to this pattern of invitations and photography.
Investigators and jurors will have to weigh whether smiles, continued posing, and physical contact on camera reflect agreement or mask fear. They will have to decide whether Weinberg’s open identifying information cuts against a predation theory or simply shows confidence. They will have to test Anson’s “predator eyes” account and Cohen’s claim that fear never registered with his client.
Authorities have not publicly detailed in the opening coverage every element of each of the 23 counts, the full legal names of all seven accusers beyond those discussed in court, or the precise docket paperwork behind the bail revocation. The courtroom fight now turns on testimony, cross-examination, and how the jury reads the exhibits already flashed onto the screen.
Weinberg’s television resume is not on trial, but it is the backdrop prosecutors and defense both understand jurors know. A producer tied to a major network comedy and a cable drama now sits through graphic evidence in a Downtown Los Angeles felony case. The contrast is stark: industry stature on one side, custody status and life-exposure charges on the other.
Cohen is casting the state’s theory as a misread of adult consensual photography that left a clear paper and address trail. Anson is casting the same sessions as approaches that began without obvious warning signs and ended, the state says, in assault the camera partly recorded and partly failed to explain without witness context.
The jury’s makeup is fixed for now at eight men and four women. Their task is classic criminal-law work. They must separate allegation from proof. They must decide whether the prosecution can show non-consent beyond a reasonable doubt on charges that include forcible rape and sexual battery. They must decide whether the defense account of mutual conduct holds when the women take the stand.
Photo exhibits will not decide the case alone. Prosecutors have previewed testimony from Avian and built openings around Kyra and Johanna as well. Defense counsel has previewed a consent theory rooted in what the women did and said, and in what Weinberg could have known at the time. The gap between those stories is the trial.
For conservatives who track equal justice and institutional seriousness in high-profile sex cases, the opening day offered a raw exhibit of how modern assault prosecutions try to convert images into narrative. Cameras freeze poses. Juries still have to find facts about force, fear, and agreement that a still frame cannot settle by itself.
When explicit photos lead a felony trial, the system either proves its charges with disciplined evidence or it teaches defendants and accusers alike that spectacle can outrun proof. That test is now in the jury’s hands.
