Kaja Sokola, a former model from Poland, alleges that Weinstein pinned her to a bed and forcibly performed oral sex on her in 2006 after luring her to his Manhattan hotel room with the promise of movie scripts.

Four years earlier, Sokola alleges, he molested her at his apartment when she was just 16, Assistant District Attorney Shannon Lucey told jurors.

Weinstein, 73, is charged in connection with the 2006 allegation, but not the earlier one. Sokola previously sued and received $US3.5 million ($5.5 million) in compensation, Lucey said.

It’s the first time Manhattan prosecutors have detailed Sokola’s allegations, which were added to the case after New York’s highest court overturned Weinstein’s conviction last year.

The rest of the retrial involves allegations from two women who were part of the original trial — Miriam Haley and Jessica Mann.

The Associated Press does not generally identify people alleging sexual assault unless they consent to be named, as Haley, Mann and Sokola have done.

Emphasising Weinstein’s onetime influence in the movie industry, Lucey said the ex-studio boss used “dream opportunities as weapons” to prey on women.

He is charged with raping Mann and forcing oral sex on Haley and Sokola.

“The defendant wanted their bodies, and the more they resisted, the more forceful he got,” Lucey said.

Weinstein, she said, “held the golden ticket: a chance to make it, or not.”

The Oscar-winning producer, seated in the wheelchair he now uses because of health problems, whispered with one of his lawyers and appeared to take notes as Lucey described his alleged crimes, but he didn’t look at the jury.

Weinstein has pleaded not guilty and denies raping or sexually assaulting anyone.

His lawyer, Arthur Aidala, told jurors in his opening statement that Weinstein engaged in “mutually beneficial relationships” with women who wanted his help in the industry but that nothing he did was illegal.

“In this case, the casting couch is not a crime scene,” Aidala argued.

He implored jurors to view the case with an open mind and to wait until they’ve heard all of the evidence before reaching a conclusion. Acknowledging Weinstein’s former career, Aidala compared the opening stage of the trial to a movie trailer.

“How often is a preview great, but the movie falls flat on its face?” the defence lawyer said.

“After you hear all of the evidence, their case is going to fall flat on its face.”

The audience in the packed courtroom included Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

He inherited the landmark #MeToo case, brought by his predecessor, when the Court of Appeals last year threw out the 2020 conviction and 23-year prison sentence because the judge allowed testimony about allegations Weinstein was not charged with. The reversal led to the retrial.

Weinstein’s retrial is playing out at a different cultural moment than the first. #MeToo, which exploded in 2017 with allegations against Weinstein, has evolved and ebbed.

The jury counts seven women and five men — unlike the seven-man, five-woman panel that convicted him in 2020 — and there’s a different judge.

At the start of Weinstein’s first trial, chants of “rapist” could be heard from protesters outside. This time, there was none of that.

Weinstein is being retried on a criminal sex act charge for allegedly forcibly performing oral sex on Haley, a movie and TV production assistant at the time, in 2006, and a third-degree rape charge for allegedly assaulting Mann, a then-aspiring actor, in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013.

Weinstein also faces a criminal sex act charge for allegedly forcing oral sex on Sokola, also in 2006. Prosecutors said she came forward days before his first trial but wasn’t part of that case. They said they revisited her allegations when his conviction was thrown out.

Weinstein’s acquittals on the two most serious charges at his 2020 trial — predatory sexual assault and first-degree rape — still stand.

Sokola’s lawyer, Lindsay Goldbrum, said Weinstein’s retrial marks a “pivotal moment in the fight for accountability in sex abuse cases” and a “signal to other survivors that the system is catching up — and that it’s worth speaking out even when the odds seem insurmountable.”

During jury selection, a prosecutor asked prospective jurors whether they’d heard of the #MeToo movement. Most said they had, but that it wouldn’t affect them either way.

Those who indicated it might were excused.