The jury had earlier convicted Harvey Weinstein of one felony sex crime, but jury deliberations had devolved into threats and yelling.

The judge overseeing the sex-crimes trial of Harvey Weinstein on Thursday declared a mistrial on a final charge against him, after the jury foreman said he was unwilling to return to deliberations.

The ruling followed a wild day in court on Wednesday, in which jurors in Manhattan convicted Mr. Weinstein of a felony sex crime but were then sent home to cool off. The jury foreman had complained to the judge that deliberations had devolved into yelling and that he felt threatened by the other jurors.

On Wednesday, the panel of seven women and five men announced a partial verdict, convicting Mr. Weinstein on a single count of criminal sexual act and acquitting him of another count of the same charge. They were unable to reach a consensus on a charge of third-degree rape.

On Thursday morning, after the foreman said he was unwilling to continue, the judge thanked the jurors for their service and told them he was obligated to declare a mistrial on the remaining count.

“Sometimes jury deliberations become heated,” Justice Curtis Farber said. “I understand this particular deliberation was more heated than some others. That’s unfortunate.”

After releasing them, Justice Farber said he had spoken to the others on the jury, describing them as “extremely disappointed.” They did not, he said, describe the deliberations as contentious as the foreman had. “They did not describe anything that rose to the level of threats,” he said.

The judge said the jurors did not understand why the foreman had “bailed out.”

“They thought they were still in the course of deliberations,” he said.

Prosecutors said they were ready to return to trial on the final charge, while Mr. Weinstein’s lawyer, Arthur Aidala, asked that it be dismissed.

Justice Farber ordered them to return to court on July 2, at which point they would discuss a trial date.

The dramatic developments this week were another chapter in the yearslong saga of Mr. Weinstein’s criminal trials and civil lawsuits after investigations by The New York Times and The New Yorker found that Mr. Weinstein, once a powerful Hollywood mogul, had mistreated women and that his company had covered it up.

He was convicted of rape and a criminal sexual act at trial in Manhattan in 2020. The verdict, which resulted in a 23-year prison sentence, was seen as a watershed moment for the #MeToo movement. He was subsequently convicted of sexual assault in a separate case in Los Angeles and sentenced to 16 years in prison there. He is appealing that verdict.

Last year, New York’s highest court overturned the Manhattan conviction, and the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, said his office would move to retry Mr. Weinstein.

Mr. Weinstein’s retrial lasted nearly two months and featured many tense moments, during witness testimony and as the lawyers tangled in arguments. At one point, Justice Farber lost his voice following a day of objections and sidebars that briefly derailed proceedings.

At another point, he scrambled to find his gavel as a defense lawyer and a witness began shouting over each other. “I hadn’t used it in 13 years,” he said later.

And shortly after the jury received the case last week, the friction that often develops among jurors as they deliberate began spilling into the courtroom. Three jurors requested to speak to the judge, two of them voicing concerns.

On Friday, a juror said he had overheard others on the jury — in an elevator and outside the courthouse the day before — talking about another member of the group. What he had heard, he believed, amounted to misconduct. Later, he unsuccessfully asked the judge to dismiss him from the case.

And on Monday, the foreman flagged his concerns for the first time. He said he was being pressured to change his vote, and that some of the other jurors were also talking about Mr. Weinstein’s past — apparently including details not included in the trial testimony.

By Wednesday, his concerns had grown, and he again requested to speak to Justice Farber in private.

The foreman said he had been met with verbal threats as he refused to change his vote.

After the contentious interactions in the jury came to light, Mr. Weinstein addressed the court directly, telling the judge that “it’s not fair” that they continue to discuss his case.

“This is my life that’s on the line,” he told the court. “And you know what? It’s not fair.”

Outside of the courthouse on Thursday, Mr. Weinstein’s lawyers promised “this is not over.”

Mr. Aidala, surrounded by others on his team, said there was evidence of “gross juror misconduct.”

The problems went beyond the concerns the foreman expressed, he said.

“Where a juror is so intimidated — a grown man, who is in good physical shape, in his late 30s, afraid to go back to the deliberation room — if that doesn’t cast doubt on the verdicts here, I don’t know what would,” he said.

But as the other 11 jurors left, several voiced confusion and frustration.

Juror No. 12, who declined to give his name, called the situation “overblown” and criticized the conduct of the jury foreman.

“Everything he did was sneaky, and we all feel bad because we really wanted to do this,” said Chantan Holmes-Clayborn, who served as Juror No. 9. “We put our hearts and souls in this. We’ve been here for seven weeks.”