Oral Argument Set In Roman Polanski CA Appeal

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 07:57:52 PM EST
Tags: Roman Polanski (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The appeal of the decision refusing to hear Roman Polanski's motion to dismiss the 1977 criminal charges and case has been set for Dec. 10 by a California appeals court. The motion was based on the revelations of the documentary, Wanted and Desired, which included interviews with a former prosecutor and the judge, which Polanski argued demonstrate proseuctiorial and judicial misconduct.

Earlier this year, the trial court refused to hear the motion because Polanski was not present in court. The appeal is asking the trial court be required to rule on the motion despite Polanski's non-appearance.

In related news, Polanski's lawyers in Switzerland have upped their bail offer to include a large cash deposit. Will that do the trick?

< NJ Editorial Seeks Pardon for Medical Marijuana Defendant | Monday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Oral Argument Set In Roman Polanski CA Appeal | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Sounds like (none / 0) (#1)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:42:54 AM EST

In related news, Polanski's lawyers in Switzerland have upped their bail offer to include a large cash deposit.

Sounds like a bribe to the state, as he will jump bail in an instant should his lawyers fail.

J, the appeal argument date is 12/10, not 11/10. (none / 0) (#2)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:57:01 AM EST

Or just retain him in detention pending (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:31:16 PM EST

decision on whether to extradite to U.S. Seems much simpler and much more likely to ensure his presence in Switzerland until the decision is made. Otherwise I envision Polanski skiing to freedom.

Careful there, you're verging on a smear ;-) (none / 0) (#6)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:15:06 PM EST

Just because Polanski fled once, doesn't mean he's likely to flee again!

BTW: the first couple of Polanski threads got hundreds of comments - did virtually EVERYBODY lose interest, or what?

Personally, I've been kind of blown back by the absolutism of the editorial stance.


Arguing about bail isn't nearly as interesting, (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by oculus on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:20:14 PM EST

apparently, as criticizing DA's office and LA Superior Court. Plus the giants of Hollywood have decided to shut up, finally.


Except for (none / 0) (#13)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:03:59 PM EST

Gore Vidal.


: So embarrassing. But is he considered (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:08:14 PM EST

part of Hollywood anymore?

I clicked on this post (none / 0) (#10)
by Steve M on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:33:30 PM EST

solely to see what oculus would say.


Ha. I got an e mail notification from the (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:38:26 PM EST

Court of Appeal yesterday as to the calendaring of oral argument in Polanski case. How sick is that?


I hope they save you a front-row seat. (none / 0) (#12)
by Steve M on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 03:29:22 PM EST

Will you be there? You did all the research. (none / 0) (#14)
by oculus on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:05:28 PM EST

What is your prediction re DCA now that (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:33:42 PM EST

Polanski is in custody attributable to warrant stemming from PC 261.5 plea?


You're speaking Greek! (none / 0) (#17)
by Steve M on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:42:51 PM EST

: Well, you are the one with the terminology (none / 0) (#20)
by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:06:39 AM EST

for court refuses to decide case because criminal defendant isn't in court. But now this criminal defendant is in custody (although not in LA County's custody) due to extradition process instigated by LA County. Will the Court of Appeal decide case claiming prosecutorial and/or judical misconduct go forward? Or must Polanski be in the custody of LA County first.

why is that sick? (none / 0) (#18)
by Jeralyn on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:06:12 PM EST

It's on appeal, why shouldn't it be heard? If he wins the appeal, the trial court might void his guilty plea and dismiss the case due to prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, which would obviate the need to extradite him. His appeals in Switzerland could take months and this could be decided before then.


"Sick" that I signed up with the (none / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:08:29 AM EST

Court of Appeal for e mail notification re Polanski's appeal.


Have you set up a google alert for Polanski? (none / 0) (#22)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:14:02 AM EST

I briefly considered it, but I've come to depend on your Polanksi news gathering skills!


: No. (But, I do google Polanski (none / 0) (#23)
by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:50:36 AM EST

under "news." Not much happening though. My friends are considering an intervention. They are comparing me to a fellow at work who was obsessed with Jon Benet Ramsey case and The Bachelor.

Bail for a fugitive? (none / 0) (#7)
by diogenes on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:33:25 PM EST

Once again, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

: Alright, don't mention the "R" word (none / 0) (#8)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:43:40 PM EST

or you're out of here Mr. Man <snark>. Trivia fact, there are only 7 four-letter words in the English language that begin with "ra" and end with "e", listed alpabethically they are: race; rage; rake; ra_e; rare; rate; rave; raze.

: I've had fugitves granted bail (none / 0) (#19)
by Jeralyn on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:08:37 PM EST

It's not as rare as you think. I've also gotten bail for someone charged with escape. All depends on the individual circumstances.