home

Roman Polanski to Fight Extradition, Seek Bail

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:50:51 PM EST
Tags: Roman Polanski (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Free Roman. His lawyers say he will fight extradition and seek immediate release on bail. Both France and Poland are requesting for his release.

France's French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterand says:

"In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face."

If you have a streaming Netflix account, the film Wanted and Desired is available for immediate viewing.

Once again, here's his motion to dismiss filed in 2008. Here's the victim's declaration.

< Monday Morning Open Thread | Monday Evening Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Roman Polanski to Fight Extradition, Seek Bail | 155 comments (155 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    That quote (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by eric on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 02:59:19 PM EST
    "there is also a scary America that has just shown its face."

    Very well put.  There is that element of this country that won't ever forgive, wants ever stiffer penalties, more and more criminal laws, more and more people in prison.  Criminal records, offender registries, civil commitment, etc.

    I am not sure why, but we are hell-bent on criminalizing, penalizing, and pounding ourselves into some kind of idealistic society composed of tea-totaling, 55 MPH driving, never park at an expired meter or otherwise make ANY kind of mistake type people.  And we may even torture you, too.

    And most of the Left (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jnicola on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:02:38 PM EST
    isn't even fighting it.

    Parent
    That's because it's about rape (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:38:57 PM EST
    If this were a drug case, I'd be cheering him on without qualm.

    The underlying offense does give pause....

    Since the victim, however, does not want Polanski in jail, I see no need to extradite just to bolster the authority of a corrupt judge and corrupt result.

    Parent

    I personally don't feel (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:51:51 PM EST
    that the victim's opinion is particularly relevant, 30 years after the fact.  It's like saying, unless you've let this act consume you for the last 30 years to the point where you still care about revenge, we're not going to care either.

    That said, for me the real point is that we shouldn't reward people for fleeing the jurisdiction.  Whether to prosecute the underlying crime after so much time is a matter of discretion.

    Parent

    Enforcing the rule of law (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:11:07 PM EST
    even when it is corrupt....Too much power to authority for me.

    With conservatives out of power, and lapping up the paranoid delusions of Glenn Beck, there is a chance of convicing a majority of people now of the need to rein in the criminal justice system.  If the wingers actually fear that Obama will put them in a FEMA concentration camp, perhaps they will rediscover the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the need to really honor the rights of criminal defendants....

    Hopefully, liberals already believe in such things.....

    Parent

    Unless Polanski is foolish enough to (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:47:30 PM EST
    move to withdraw his plea, there is no need for the victim to testify, unless she chooses to at the sentencing hrg.

    Parent
    Have you read the victim's declaration? (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:54:01 PM EST
    It makes sense.  She is the one who has suffered.  

    She does not want a carnival.  Her name is now is the press again for all to see.  

    Parent

    As shown in the victim's declaration, (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:56:08 PM EST
    she has wanted from the beginning to avoid the trauma a trial would cause--that is why the plea deal was made by the original prosecutor.

    She has written letters over the span of many years stating the same position.

    Parent

    You know it immediately springs to mind (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:04:39 PM EST
    that there must be a "scary France" where its okay to drug and forcibly rape a child. I don't mean to be flip but one of my major problems with people commenting on this case is portraying it as the crimilization of sexual mores- its not read the victim's testimony and the police reports- Polanski forced himself on his victim and then if were going to get technical about it engaged in another sex offense- it would have been a crime even if she was his own age.

    Parent
    I wouldn't brag about that sex-related crime rate. (none / 0) (#142)
    by Lysis on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 04:11:49 AM EST
    If this case is any indication, sex-related crime isn't taken seriously at all.

    The man drugged and raped a child. If he hadn't also made some good movies, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#155)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 10:36:48 AM EST
    If this guy was a 6th grade teacher or a Church Group leader and the victim was one of his students- does anyone seriously think we'd be having this conversation? How about if the victim was a boy (admittedly some people excused the Catholic Church doing what Polanski did for himself- so maybe its just those of us who were angered in that situation with a problem).  

    Parent
    Not Sure About Reports of Sex Related Crimes (none / 0) (#146)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 06:31:06 AM EST
    Like, for example, reports of domestic violence crimes, these numbers can be wildly under-reported depending on the prevailing values of a society.

    Can't speak at all about France, but I know that's been the case in the U.S. for a long part of our history.

    Parent

    Very well put yourself Eric... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:05:24 PM EST
    its done more than show its scary face, its shown its scary bloodsucking fangs.

    Parent
    Bail (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by David B on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:16:13 PM EST
    is the last thing I'd give Polanski, given he's a known flight risk.

    It's not about vengence to want to see him extradited back, it's respect for the judicial system.  If he wanted to move to dismiss his indictment and have any sympathy, the time to do so was 1977.  He ran, and took the risk he'd be caught and sent back.  But the motion to be released on bail is the wackiest thing I've ever heard of.  He'd just go back to France and let the state defend him from les betes Americains.

    When even the Swiss decide they're not gonna protect your shady self, time to go face the music.

    Does the judicial system... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:26:56 PM EST
    have no responsibility to be worthy of respect?

    Until it is worthy, you are fool not to run and hide from the shredder.

    Parent

    You can't have it both ways (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by David B on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:46:01 PM EST
    Polanski deliberately chose not to play by the rules by fleeing, and he's making all sorts of motions, presumably because he thinks he can get a fair shake.  As far as I'm concerned, he's a coward.  

    Parent
    Wonder how film industry outrage will (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:49:32 PM EST
    impace DA's decisions.  

    Parent
    Fair point... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:56:48 PM EST
    I certainly woulda passed on any dealings with the courts once I fled...screw me once, shame on you kinda thing.

    Parent
    Was Polanski ever a US Citizen? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 09:22:25 PM EST
    Just asking.

    Parent
    I don't think it matters. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 09:25:51 PM EST
    He chose to rape a child here, I think he ought to be subject to our laws.

    Parent
    In total agreement re bail. This is (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:37:34 PM EST
    where it pays to have lots of money.  Might as well spend it I guess.

    Parent
    Re: (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by az on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:18:55 PM EST
    This guy drugged and raped an underaged child and then ran from the law and you seem to be asking him to be freed.

    Thats just odd...

    Spare us, (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by eric on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:21:38 PM EST
    that isn't what happened.  Please, please catch up on the facts.  It is painful to read these comments from people that don't know the facts.

    Parent
    The facts seem to be in debate. No trial. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:29:44 PM EST
    Factual:  Polanski pleaded guilty (or nolo--can't remember) to violation of PC 261.5 as a felony and FTA'd for felony sentencing hrg.  

    Parent
    Facts? (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Slado on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:10:09 PM EST
    Read the testimony posted above.

    He's guilty of child rape.  Period.

    The only real argument is that he was somehow going to get screwed over by a wacky judge so he fled .

    To me that is a debatable point but what isn't debatable is the fact that he drugged and had sex with a 13 year old (who testifies she was unwilling).

    Parent

    What he got was a really, really good (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:15:56 PM EST
    deal initially in the plea bargain.  And then a judge remembered he had to stand for election.  Speculative, natch.

    Parent
    if you look into what actually went (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:34:58 PM EST
    on in that "trial" you will see the judge had much bigger problems than election politics.

    he makes Judge Ito look like freakin Earl Warren.


    Parent

    No trial. And judge is dead. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:42:11 PM EST
    Of course, we aren't permitted to speak ill of the dead here.  

    Parent
    see the doc (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:47:53 PM EST
    With her documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, filmmaker Marina Zenovich revisits this difficult case via extensive interviews with Geimer, defense attorney Douglas Dalton, Assistant DA Roger Gunson, and others. In the process, she raises pivotal questions about the U.S. legal system and the fairness of the judge, Laurence J. Rittenband (who was reportedly extremely vocal about his desire to topple Polanski) and encounters many recollections of judicial malfeasance from those who were involved. - Nathan Southern, All Movie Guide


    Parent
    How does that compare with her testimony (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:52:24 PM EST
    under oath at the prelim.?

    Parent
    no idea (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:55:50 PM EST
    never saw her testimony but she has a lot to say in the film.
    as does the prosecutor in charge of the case.  i.e. he is now on the defendants side.


    Parent
    Is the prosecutor a former prosecutor (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:57:10 PM EST
    who now earns his living doing criminal defense?  

    Parent
    no idea (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:01:54 PM EST
    Two of the lawyers featured prominently in the HBO documentary on Roman Polanski that debuted this week have issued a statement disputing the Superior Court's allegation that the film was wrong about a 1997 offer to resolve the case. Doug Dalton was Polanski's attorney when the director was jailed for having sex with a minor; after his temporary release, Polanski fled the country in advance of a prison term. Roger Gunson was the prosecutor who didn't think Polanski deserved time. Both said in the documentary that, first, Judge Lawrence Rittenband violated judicial ethics in the case, and that Judge Larry Paul Fidler later offered to resolve the case but demanded that TV's be allowed in the court. The Superior Court statement on Monday denied on behalf of Fidler that there was such a demand. Now this:

        JOINT STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS DALTON AND ROGER GUNSON:



    Parent
    I agree with you (none / 0) (#66)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:09:02 PM EST
    that former prosecutors are not to be trusted!  Er, that was your point, right...?

    Parent
    whatever (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:11:59 PM EST
    maybe one of you lawyers can tell me how common it is for the prosecutor and the defense in a case to join forces to go public because they are so horrified at what passed as "justice".

    not that common Im thinkin.


    Parent

    Ha. Roger Gunson is retired. (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:29:32 PM EST
    He and defense counsel didn't agree as to whether Judge Fidler insisted the hearing be televised.  I've never heard of a judge requiring a proceeding be televised.  But, never mind.

    BTW:  Gunson was second chair on the McMartin preschool cases.

    Parent

    from the joint statement (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:33:33 PM EST
    One of the issues raised by Mr. Dalton during the meeting was the question of media coverage. All understood that any proceedings would be open to the public as required by law. During the meeting, Mr. Dalton pressed Judge Fidler for a resolution of the case that would allow for minimal news media. Mr. Dalton recalled that Judge Fidler would require television coverage at the proposed hearing due to the controversy. Mr. Gunson recalls television coverage discussed at the meeting. Mr. Dalton told documentary director Marina Zenovich of this requirement.

    It is our shared view that Monday's false and reprehensible statement by the Los Angeles Superior Court continues their inappropriate handling of the Polanski case.



    Parent
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:36:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:24:36 PM EST
    Butt popping?  Are you a 13 y.o.?

    OMG....I'm rolling on the floor (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:04:27 PM EST
    I had no idea what it was until I think it was a 14 yr old who demonstrated it for me :)

    Parent
    David B (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by David B on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:37:45 PM EST
    I just read the motion -- it should be denied.

    There is conspicuously no argument that the sentence imposed by the trial judge -- which promped Polanski to use his considerable means to flee the country -- was in violation of the law.  Instead Polanski tries to bootstrap his disapproval at the outcome into an argument the Judge's decision-making process was flawed, but there is no evidence that the Judge disregarded the probation report.  

    Similarly, the arguments about Wells' comments, even if admissible hearsay, do not establish or allege beyond one's ipse dixit that they were the legal cause of the Judge's sentencing decision.

    And the disentitlement defense absolutely applies -- what is being a fugitive from justice other than "flouting process?"  The civil suit cases are inapposite because they addressed Polanski's vindication of separate and distinct legal rights.  The Conde Nast case quoted explicitly distinguishes civilly-protected rights from Polanski's criminal case.  

    Given the standard of review on motions to dismiss post-conviction, Polanski deserves to lose this motion.  Not that a pending motion to dismiss is, or should be, a basis to defeat extradition.    

    Jeralyn is free to take (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Slado on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:06:10 PM EST
    her position that his motion has merit but frankly it's beside the point.

    He fled.  Period.  By fleeing he broke the law.

    If you are accused of a crime you fight it out in court.  He was rich so he used his status and fortune to escape and live in exile.  

    Now the law has caught up to him. Too bad.  He had 30 years on the lamb that many wouldn't have been afforded.

    Europeans are right to be outraged.  In America we are less likely to allow the elite to use their status and riches to ignore the legal system.  We are by no means flawless but in America we are not as comfortable in our class as to allow a child rapist to walk scott free.

    By the way he was a rapist.  Read the testimony of the actual victim and remember what he did when you get all worked up that he might actually spend 2 years in prison.

    Parent

    "In America... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:19:50 PM EST
    "...we are less likely to allow the elite to use their status and riches to ignore the legal system."

    This assertion really makes me chuckle.  The more rich and powerful you are, and this is almost axiomatic in this nation, the more exponentially unlikely you are to face the wrath of the justice system, or a more serious punishment that the average person would get.  Just look at corporations.  We are a nation controlled and ruled by corporate riches.  And they NEVER pay the piper like the average schmoe does.  Exxon had their 5 billion dollar judgement in the Valdez case (where they ruined thousands of peoples livelihoods and communities) reduced by 90% to 500 million by the activist Roberts supreme court; then this sc*mbag corporation was allowed to reward the president of the company upon his retirement with a 400 million dollar bonus.  And that was the guy who was president DURING the Valdez disaster.
     

    Parent

    What's your point? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Slado on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:24:51 PM EST
    That America is not perfect?

    Your whole diatribe points out the obvious fact that so many will let their healthy criticism of America and it's many flaws to cloud their judgement.

    To the extent that they would defend a child rapist if it meant scoring cheap political points against the "system".

    Parent

    i think the point is that (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by sancho on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:44:07 PM EST
    you are using the conviction and sentencing of a 'child rapist' to postulate as if it were true a system in which (american) law treats the rich and poor equally. and that presumption is, to put it mildly, severely misguided.  which is why talkleft is a defense site.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#46)
    by eric on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:40:06 PM EST
    if there is one country where money and status buys you justice it is in the US.  Probably Saudi Arabia, too.

    Parent
    Most of latin america (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 06:04:48 AM EST
    also, Asia to boot.  Africa also.  

    Parent
    And Europe (none / 0) (#157)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 10:38:37 AM EST
    the "aristocratic privelege" thing still functions- in those cases its less about wealth than breeding- but money also does it-- just look Berlesconi.

    Parent
    So would the argument be (none / 0) (#75)
    by Slado on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:21:41 PM EST
    that since we always do it it's ok to let Roman do it?

    I'm confused.

    Parent

    The rumors I heard (none / 0) (#76)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:21:44 PM EST
    was it was our neighbors to the south that had friendly and affordable justice.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by eric on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:30:10 PM EST
    Mexico, too.  The bonus is that it is relatively affordable justice.  You don't need millions.

    Parent
    Yep and (none / 0) (#145)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 06:24:47 AM EST
    Poland, France and the limousine libs in Hollywood would get this worked up over a no-name schmoe who did the same thing and was arrested after 30 years of hiding out.  

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#158)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 10:39:59 AM EST
    a Roman the School Teacher or Roman the Scout Leader (not Roman the priest though) would have never had the chance to flee in the first place as he would have been put in prison.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:35:21 PM EST
    He had 30 years on the lamb that many wouldn't have been afforded.

    Bestiality, too?  What a jerk!

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#42)
    by eric on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:36:32 PM EST


    Parent
    No evidence? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by racymind on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:37:37 PM EST
    Maybe I am not understanding you, but the whole affair revolves around the Judge not wanting to abide by the terms of the plea agreement entered on 8-25-77.  How can you say there's no evidence the Judge disregarded the probation report?  It's like saying the Judge didn't know that no jail time was recommended and was agreed upon with the plea deal. Of course he knew.

    Are you sure you read the motion?

    Parent

    i doubt any of them did (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:09:44 PM EST
    it's 229 pages. They'd rather spout off in ignorance. Really sad.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, given the motion is a pleading (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:39:02 PM EST
    filed on behalf of a party, are you accepting its contents as entirely accurate?  

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by David B on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 09:56:52 PM EST
    It's possible to "consider" the probation report without "agreeing with it."  And if not, the way to deal with that is either to appeal the sentence or move to withdraw the plea and take your chances on a trial.  I'm not sure where in the California rules of criminal procedure, there's a provision for spending 30 years making films in France, but then again, I'm only admitted to practice in New York.

    DId the judge take it the report under advisement?  No reason to think he didn't, and none is offered by the motion, except the bootstrapping argument that the outcome was not what Polanski would have preferred.  There's any reason for the judge to be skeptical of its conclusions, as well, given how much star power Polanski could throw at the case and the report's conclusion that someone who drugged and repeatedly raped a little girl should get time served.  By the way, was Judge Rakoff wrong to throw out the settlement between SEC and Bank of America?    

    The motion is based on what is more likely than not inadmissible hearsay (the "admission against interest" argument is pretty tenuous and would draw vociferous objections from any defense attorney if similar justifications were offered by a prosecutor.)   Even on its face, Wells's testimony does not support the proposition asserted.

    So, while I didn't read the exhibits, I did read the brief (and referenced the case law Polanski cited in my post) and construed its facts against the moving party.  (I assumed the record cites were accurate and that the good stuff was in the memo of law.  If there's a smoking gun buried on page 168, the lawyers have themselves to blame because the judge is not going to read all of the declarations either.)   The holes that are evident on the face of his affirmative case are enough to conclude that Polanski should lose on his motion, and even if he doesn't, he shouldn't be filing motions in a California court while actively trying to avoid its jurisdiction.  You flee, you get what's coming to you.

    Parent

    Well, ain't what you said (none / 0) (#147)
    by racymind on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 06:46:16 AM EST
    I would be careful flouting legal expertise if this is your best.  You first claim "there is no evidence" the probation report was disregarded by the judge, when that was a ridiculous statement. Assuming you know what 'evidence' is.

    Sounds like you aren't familiar with plea bargains at all, either.

    And it goes downhill from there.

    Parent

    Not looking good for defendant re bail: (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:46:40 PM EST
    A spokesman for the Swiss Justice Ministry told The Hollywood Reporter that it was now up to the federal Swiss court to decide whether or not to grant bail.

    "Swiss rules do not rule it out (release on bail), but it is only granted exceptionally" the spokesman said.



    if this isn't an exceptional case (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:13:08 PM EST
    I don't know what is. Prediction: He'll get bail and be ordered to remain in his home in Switzerland (where's he spent tons of time over the last years and never once was sought to be extradited from it.) He can hire a security firm to make sure he stays there, like Bernie Madoff did when he got bail after his arrest. Either that or he'll get an agreement in writing from the DA that the case will be dropped if he agrees to return.

    Parent
    It's exceptional (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by David B on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 10:05:23 PM EST
    in that even though Polanski's an incredible coward to run from the California court, he has epic chutzpah to ask the Swiss for special treatment.  There is a valid international warrant out for his arrest.  While I very much disagree with your characterization of Polanski's motion to dismiss the indictment, what kind of rule of law is it that a court hearing a criminal case cannot extradite a defendant from a jurisdiction with which there is a lawful extradition treaty, and the defendant does not contest the jurisdiction of the extraditing court?  I cannot imagine a Swiss court would want to collaterally examine matters pending in a California court of competent jurisdiction.

    Parent
    According to the Swiss spokesperson, (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:39:56 PM EST
    the presumption is against Mr. Polanski.  

    Parent
    The sentencing judge had the discretion (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:17:42 PM EST
    not to follow the plea bargain.  And Polanski had a right to file a motion to withdraw his plea.  Which would have subjected him to trial on the original counts--not statutory rape.  

    he didn't have the discretion (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:15:18 PM EST
    to conduct ex parte communications with a prosecutor, advise Polanski's lawyers he would not grant them the opportunity to address the probation report which recommended no jail, or to impose the sentence he intended to which included a condition he voluntarily deport himself from the U.S.

    Parent
    He did have the discretion on point III (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by David B on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 10:12:10 PM EST
    Polanski accepted that he could be deported as a condition of entering the plea.  And I don't see where in his motion the first two points amount to reversible error.  Not clear the ex parte communications -- even if admissible -- were outcome determinative, and there's no reason to think further briefing or argument from the defense on the probation report would be relevant.  The defense is going to add anything of substance to "no jail time?"  

    None of which is a defense to extradition, and none of which are appropriate to bring up 30 years after fleeing the jurisdiction.  (Admittedly, the defense didn't know about the ex parte communications, but they could easily have appealed the sentence itself or interlocutory orders, or tried to roll the dice on a trial.)  Polanski still would have gotten off easy, considering if the victim's testimony at the time was accurate, he'd be facing life in prison in many jurisdictions.  There are many sympathetic defendants, but Polanski ain't one.  And I absolutely love his movies.  Much better than Woody Allen's.

    Parent

    Big difference between (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 12:11:58 AM EST
    knowing an offense could be deportable (an action that would have to be taken by the feds and in 1977 there was no law specifying virtually every felony conviction results in mandatory deportation --that law didn't come in until 1986 or 1988 or so) and forcing a defendant to voluntarily deport.

    In Roman's case, the voluntary deportation requirement would have been illegal. (In the 70's, we used to call it "sundown parole" in Colorado -- if the DA let our client plead to no jail time, he/she'd agree to leave Colorado immediately. A judge couldn't have ordered it but we made bargains for it -- I can't remember it coming up since then. The point being, the defendant could agree to it but without his agreement, the judge couldn't impose it. This judge made clear his intent to impose it as part of the sentence.

    Parent

    Somehow I don't think (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by David B on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 10:53:16 AM EST
    Roman was too concerned about the possibility of deportation, because his response to a possible adverse ruling was to, um, voluntarily deport himself.

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:23:34 PM EST


    Parent
    IMO, Polanski's attorneys got a too good (4.42 / 7) (#38)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:34:55 PM EST
    deal in the plea bargain and, also, IMO, the judge was doing his job to take a close look at it.  

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#93)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:09:56 PM EST
    he's getting the benefit of both things right now- it looks like overzealousness, and he gets to look like it was just statuatory rape- not forcible rape (I don't think there'd be as much sympathy for him if the full nature of the accusations were well known to his defenders- most seem to assume it was a "whoops, thought she was of age" mistake as opposed to a drugging followed by forcible rape, etc. ).

    Parent
    Accountability? (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:25:50 PM EST
    I don't care about what happens to Polanski.

    I care that he drugged, raped, and sodomized a child.  And got a slap on the wrist.  Which he decided was just too much.

    Which gets me to thinking: do the people who (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:30:54 PM EST
    will no longer see a Woody Allen movie also shun Polanski's work?  

    Parent
    Seriously (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:38:00 PM EST
    I am one of those shunners and I have been for quite awhile.  I'm just not interested in paying Polanski or Allen for jack$h*t.  And I pay Hollywood, we imbibe liberally.

    Parent
    I'm still an Allen fan except I (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:39:34 PM EST
    can't keep up.  Guy is really prolific!

    Parent
    I was movie curious (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:45:12 PM EST
    but the whole step-daughter thing went down around the time that I was beginning my adult love affair with movies.  I've never been able to shake the yucky feeling his name gives me, and when I see his name on something it immediately shuts a door in my upstairs that I can't bring myself to open.  And I'm okay with that.

    Parent
    You're missing out pal.... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:56:25 PM EST
    You deprive yourself of a lot of great art if you can't seperate the art from the artist...too many greats to mention were sick sick mofos.

    Parent
    Considering that (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:59:23 PM EST
    I would punch my husband in the face until he was probably dead if he married his step daughter after I found naked photos of her in his possession....I don't see this outcome evolving for me kdog.

    Parent
    What about Chuck Berry? (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:11:11 PM EST
    Jimmy Page?

    I could do without Polanski or Allen myself but not Chuck or Led Zep...no matter how f*cked up the artist is, the art is too good to pass up...I'd only be punishing myself.

    Parent

    Their art is not (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:18:28 PM EST
    in my art appreciation time frame.  And if they did what they did in current times I think they would experience a similar shunning.

    Parent
    By all means... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:25:05 PM EST
    if thats what your path to righteousness dictates, I just hate to see you deprive yourself of any of the beauty in this sick world, even if the beauty comes from a sick mind.  Its uncanny how often the most beautiful art does come from a sick mind...like Capt said the list is freakin' endless.

    The gods are some practical jokers, I tell ya.

    Parent

    Everyone has a dark side (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:35:08 PM EST
    I have a sick mind.  The difference is when the darkness travels outside of my mind and physically goes after children.  There is a big difference between understanding that I want to punch my husband in the face until he is dead too and then actually doing it.  I would probably settle for never seeing him or speaking to him again and having to actually spit on the ground everytime someone said his name, because I don't want to put myself through the trauma of actually physically doing that to him even if he did something physically and emotionally heinous to someone in need of his mentoring, guidance, and protection.

    Parent
    indeed (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:30:45 PM EST
    from Caravaggio to Fatty Arbuckle and beyond
     

    Parent
    Jerry Lee Lewis (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:12:55 PM EST
    he married a 12 year old.

    the list is endless.

    Parent

    But yeah... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:14:13 PM EST
    some sick mofo touches my nieces I'm thinking I'll be on the lamb myself.

    Parent
    Lam. Polanski was not charged with (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:22:04 PM EST
    bestiality. :-)

    Parent
    'Lions for Lams' (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:41:24 PM EST
    I shouldn't really joke right now.

    Parent
    Step daughter? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 09:28:52 PM EST
    Mia Farrow adopted her, and Woody Allen was never married to Mia Farrow.

    The only part I found really creepy was the age of Soon Yi (was that her name?) and his age at the time they began their intimate relationship.


    Parent

    exactly what I was thinking (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:58:34 PM EST
    if you are going to start sorting movies based on some scumbag scale you might as well give them up altogether.

    personally I think both of them have their best work behind them.

    I never cared much for Allens later movies.  like the aliens in one of his films I like the early "funny" ones.

    Parent

    I have never seen (none / 0) (#49)
    by me only on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:44:12 PM EST
    either a Roman Polanski film or a Woody Allen film.  I am over 40.

    Parent
    I'm 44 (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:52:25 PM EST
    I've seen 'Rosemary's Baby'.  I saw a few of Allen's and 'Hannah and Her Sisters' was priceless and I loved 'Annie Hall'.  But when he did his thing with his step-daughter that ended my interest in him forever.

    Parent
    I think you just described Brangelina. (none / 0) (#164)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 10:58:53 AM EST
    Except Brad hasn't married one of his wife's adopoted children.  (Just to put things into perspective.  BTW, feel free to notice my snark below.)

    Parent
    Didn't Woody (none / 0) (#116)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 07:13:35 PM EST
    divorce from his wife and marry his daughter?  :(

    Parent
    He never married Mia Farrow. And he (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 07:16:03 PM EST
    never adopted the woman he married.  

    Parent
    Thanks for the clarity. (none / 0) (#120)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 07:39:40 PM EST
    Nothing unusual about that.  :)

    Parent
    have you ever (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:36:20 PM EST
    bothered to hear her account?
    or does that matter.


    Parent
    no more false comments from you (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:18:56 PM EST
    take it elsewhere. He didn't get a slap on the wrist, he hasn't ever been sentenced.

    Parent
    Interesting LAT article. Did (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:55:12 PM EST
    defendants' motion to dismiss and reply brief motivate LA DA's office to finally try and arrest Polansky and request extradition?

    LAT

    Appellant's opening and reply briefs. (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:55:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Oopps (none / 0) (#61)
    by coast on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:59:12 PM EST
    That was money well spent.

    Parent
    Some people seem to think that Samantha (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:17:27 PM EST
    apparently not wanting Polanski to go to jail is equivalent to her forgiving him or her being "over it."

    I'm not sure that's the case here.

    From a 2005 interview regarding Polanski's libel suit against some magazine:

    "Polanski is a very arrogant, self-important, creepy old man," says Samantha, now a married mum-of-three who lives with husband David.

    Speaking exclusively to the Mirror at her home in Hawaii, the 39-year-old continues: "The libel case makes no sense. I really couldn't understand why he took out the lawsuit in the first place. Surely a man like this hasn't got a reputation to tarnish?

    "He took sex from me and my innocence. I don't think it occurred to him that someone wouldn't want sex with him."
    she has publicly forgiven him (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:19:51 PM EST
    get your facts straight.

    Parent
    I don't understand why (5.00 / 6) (#113)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:55:03 PM EST
    that keeps coming up here, as if it makes a legal difference?  I don't see how.  I see accounts of many cases in which victims give forgiveness -- but that really is for themselves and their emotional health.  It doesn't mean that that they want someone let off, nor that the justice system lets them decide that.

    I thought we made a major stride forward in this country when we took the onus off domestic violence victims having to bring charges and, instead, put that burden on police, acting for us as a society.  

    Aren't these charges the same?  I.e., it wasn't a 13-year-old pressing charges, it was the state?  So it is for the state to "forgive"?  Oh, I just don't get it -- how her forgiving him to get on with her life makes any legal difference, yet it keeps being brought up here.

    Parent

    The Victim's declaration (3.00 / 1) (#119)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 07:35:39 PM EST
    explains her position.  The link is above in Jeralyn's article.

    She never wanted the trauma from testifying.  That is why the original plea deal was made.  

    It is hard to read her declaration and to state that what she wants doesn't or shouldn't matter.

    Parent

    What she wanted then (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 08:07:20 PM EST
    is like citing what the judge wanted then. . . .

    And it still doesn't get to the core of our justice system, does it, between what a victim wants and what society wants?  What if the victim wanted him castrated?

    Parent

    She still wants the same thing today (none / 0) (#165)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 12:08:01 PM EST
    She has consistently stated--and written letters over the years--that she does not want any further proceedings.  A guilty plea was enough for her.  

    The declaration really spells it out--including the provisions under California law that allow a victim's wishes to carry weight.  It is part of the victim's rights referrendum and is part of the law here.  No, a victim's wishes do not always control--but here, I think, they are very important.

    I recommend that all who opine on this read that declaration.

    The victim lives in Hawaii.  Getting her to testify against her will in a state court proceeding in California would entail a huge rigamarole.  She would probably have to be arrested to coerce her testimony.


    Parent

    The facts, assuming The Mirror is not lying to us, (none / 0) (#135)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 10:20:12 PM EST
    are plain to read in Samantha's own words.

    However, I think it's a pretty sure bet that she'll come out with a new statement pretty soon, considering all of the recent hullabaloo.

    So, we'll see.

    Parent

    Here is Gerald Posner's take: (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:20:08 PM EST
    The Daily Beast

    Wow (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:37:11 PM EST
    Polanski, for his part, has let it be known through friends that he thought the U.S. statutory rape laws are puritanical at best and utterly stupid at worst. The victim was, he is said to have told his closest friends, a temptress in the mold of Nabokov's Lolita.

    Lack of respect for the law doesn't help him.

    Not to mention lack of logic.  If the 13-year-old was such a temptress, why did he have to dope her?

    Parent

    I'm speculating those statements didn't (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:39:17 PM EST
    make it into the "documentary."  He really sounds like a creep.

    Parent
    I guess his documented (3.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:45:23 PM EST
    fascination with underage girls didn't make it into the documentary either.  I haven't watched it.  Don't really want to.  But a long time ago I did watch some report on him and it was clear that this was not his only underage infatuation.

    Parent
    Nastassja Kinski. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 07:32:24 PM EST
    She was 15.

    Parent
    Polanski evidently didn't think the laws applied (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:21:53 PM EST
    in more ways than one.

    The acclaimed Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown director was set free on $2,000 bond and the judge gave him a 90-day stay from prosecution so he could finish his then current film project, Hurricane. (The judge reversed his decision after Polanski took a trip to Munich to arrange film financing, even though his bail conditions were supposed to keep him in California).


    Parent
    Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:21:27 PM EST
    I have to ask- do you think of Mike Tyson as a rapist?  I mean its been a long time since he commited his crime too- how many decades have to pass before rape quits being rape and becomes "one bad act a long time ago" does it vary depending on the severity of the crime?  I mean we were still as a society willing to back the prosecutions of the civil rights crimes decades after the fact- and in some of those cases the defendant had already been acquited by a jury of their peers.

    What is the legal principle? (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 11:27:35 PM EST


    Parent
    that everyone deserves to have (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 12:21:04 AM EST
    their guilt and/or sentence determined fairly in accordance with the constitutional rights guaranteed to them and free of judicial misconduct and manipulations. That didn't happen here.

    The offense is besides the point. It could be a traffic ticket, homicide or a terrorism offense. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the rights of persons accused of crime, and in this case, given the collusion between the judge and the prosecutor who was not involved in the case (which the prosecutor has admitted to in his own words in the documentary) that didn't happen.

    If you can't trust in the integrity of the proceedings, the outcome has no credibility. That hurts all of us.

    Parent

    Of course the judge and prosecutor should (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 12:23:36 AM EST
    not have had ex parte communications pending sentencing.  Whether it was the prosecutor assigned to the case or any other prosecutor in the DA's office.  

    Parent
    Reminds me (none / 0) (#148)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 06:51:08 AM EST
    of a recent story from Detroit that has been blogged here, involving the same fact pattern of the judge asking a favored prosecutor for "advice" on how a case ought to be handled.

    Parent
    Well um he pled guilty right? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 10:42:32 AM EST
    I mean that's not in dispute from what I can tell- heck despite possible attempts to vacate his plea he's never protested his innonence (to the statuatory rape- not the forcible rape, or sodomy charges).

    Parent
    then go elsewhere (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 12:24:36 AM EST
    And don't pollute this site, which is a site dedicated to preserving the constitutional rights of those accused of crime. Your raw emotional ranting is not welcome here. If you have some cogent thoughts on the legal case or extradition, you are welcome to comment, even if you disagree with TalkLeft's point of view. If you don't, and just want to spew, please remove yourself.

    I deleted the comment I am replying to (none / 0) (#166)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 06:06:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Awesome (1.00 / 2) (#143)
    by jarober on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 05:13:34 AM EST
    On the left, drugging and raping a 13 year old girl, followed by fleeing the country is ok.  

    One wonders what might actually constitute a crime.

    Yeah, except not (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Birmingham Blues on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 10:36:59 AM EST
    You see plenty of disagreement on the left in this thread alone, and there's plenty more around the blogosphere.  Do try not to generalize when your assertion has been disproven right here.

    Parent
    From the France/Poland link... (none / 0) (#2)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:00:45 PM EST
    Lefevre's deputy, Dominique Paille, added that it was also shocking to see a country regarded as an example of democracy fail to observe a statute of limitations for such crimes.

    "A democracy that does not admit a statute of limitations for unlawful or criminal acts is after all a very peculiar democracy," he added.

    Is there a statute of limitations on his crime?

    The statute of Limitations (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:13:13 PM EST
    generally doesn't apply to things a person has been charged with- otherwise jumping bail would be a great idea for any crime where the charge involved major prison time- I mean you just wait for a decade or so and its all good- it'd basically let you buy your way out of jail on major offenses.

    Parent
    He already entered a plea. Then he (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:03:31 PM EST
    FTA'd.  S/L for underlying crimes irrelevant.

    Parent
    What is FTA? n/t (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:11:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Failure to appear. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:11:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Statutory limitations (none / 0) (#7)
    by jnicola on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:10:55 PM EST
    in California are laid out here. My reading is that new charges could not be brought, and that while the statute was tolled, this was for a limited time, but there are a lot of people asserting that the statute of limitations has been tolled since he fled.

    Jeralyn - are you aware of any decent legal analysis of the case that's been posted, please, or are you considering posting one yourself? There's a lot of misinformation going around even the normally saner sites (see the link to Big Orange above if you want to be depressed) and some clarity would be very useful...

    Wrong. (none / 0) (#10)
    by jnicola on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:12:54 PM EST
    He has already been plead guilty and convicted of butt popping a 13 year old girl after giving drugs and alcohol.

    No, he hasn't. Please read the documents Jeralyn posted.

    You're right (none / 0) (#97)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:15:30 PM EST
    he got a plea agreement wherein he was only charged with statuatory rape- then he fled after it looked like the judge might actually apply a normal sentence for Statuatory rape (taking into account the ages of the victim and the perpetrator).

    Parent
    that comment has been deleted for (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:25:26 PM EST
    containing false facts

    Parent
    I don't care about Polanski (none / 0) (#24)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 03:59:12 PM EST
    He should be treated the same as other in other cases of this nature (e.g. similar in crime, suspect's conduct, time elapsed, and victim's attitude).

    Since I have no idea about what happens in similar cases, or if there are any similar cases at all, I can't comment on whether he is treated more favorably or less. I have no idea, so I can't comment any further.

    Defendants who don't show up for (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:05:06 PM EST
    sentencing and lead "exemplary lives" in the intervening years sometimes get a break compared to similarly-situated defendants who timely appeared for sentencing.  

    Parent
    Times change (none / 0) (#151)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 09:40:13 AM EST

    Orwell:

    If Shakespeare returned to the earth to-morrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another King Lear.

    Times change.

    Parent

    Campsite in GA (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:03:35 PM EST
    When all is said and done I wonder if they will send him to the woods....

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33060361/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

    Or worse... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 05:03:00 PM EST
    Poland with the new chemical castration law.

    Pretty soon we won't be able to pick which is worse, our societal systems or the sickest sc*mbags who don't deserve to walk the earth.

    Parent

    Mandatory Minimums (none / 0) (#34)
    by David B on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:25:36 PM EST
    Once Polanski is back in the United States (and it really is a foregone conlusion that he will), would there be any mandatory minimums he'd face once a new judge imposes the sentence?

    I guess if I were Polanski's lawyer, I'd consider withdrawing the guilty plea, knowing that the victim would not cooperate with the prosecution (though the prosecution could still cross-examine her with the testimony at the preliminary hearing.)  

    On the other hand, the case is now in a posture of him awaiting sentence on the stautory rape charge, and not the other 5, so he may be better off taking his chances with that.  Or move to withdraw plea once he finds out what he gets.  

    No way would a competent attorney (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 04:36:38 PM EST
    recommend Polanski w/d his plea.  There is no mandatory min. state prison time on either PC 261.5 as a felony or felony FTA.  

    Parent
    Absolutely they would (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:17:45 PM EST
    No DA is going to retry this case now. If it doesn't get thrown out or if the initial plea bargain is not promised in writing to be adhered to, I hope he withdraws his plea.

    Parent
    Big mistake. (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:24:16 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#111)
    by racymind on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:48:20 PM EST
    I admit to pondering it until you weighed in (non-practicing JD here), but wasn't he promised the right to withdraw the plea if the punishment was different from the deal? (Of course he was).

    The judges plan to limit this plea withdrawal to a motion for a new trial was major screwed up, right? ( I know not the CA remedy if the judge acts recklessly on an agreed plea).

    And of course, nobody no way would take the case to a trial now. OMG. Without a cooperative victim? They'd get their lunch eaten at this late date... hell, they lost the file to the case. Just don't see it.

    And the prosecutorial/judicial misconduct is  unbelievable.

    Parent

    While watching the "shiny metal" (none / 0) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:30:41 PM EST
    my mind also runs to the question of why now?  Apparently, Roman Polanski owns a home in Switzerland that he presumably uses from time to time, and if Polanski was  a target of long standing, either the Swiss have been working with Inspector Clouseau or a Swiss Guard, in full regalia, on leave from the Vatican.  Moreover, Polanski has been making a film in Germany (which has an extradition agreement with the US) and has been quite visible in that process.  Just curious by nature.

    Ask, and you shall receive (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:34:55 PM EST
    His own attorneys may have prompted the arrest.

    Roman Polanski's attorneys may have helped provoke his arrest by complaining to an appellate court this summer that Los Angeles prosecutors had never made any real effort to arrest the filmmaker in his three decades as a fugitive, two sources familiar with the case told The Times.

    The accusation that the Los Angeles County district attorney's office was not serious about extraditing Polanski was a small part of two July court filings by the director's attorneys. But it caught the attention of prosecutors and led to his capture in Switzerland on Saturday, the sources said.



    Parent
    Of course, (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:37:51 PM EST
    his attorneys neglected to mention the fact that

    On at least two previous occasions, the district attorney's office has received reports that Polanski had travel arrangements to countries with extradition treaties with the U.S. and prepared paperwork for his arrest, Gibbons said.

    "But in the end, he apparently found out about it and didn't go," she said.

    A source familiar with the investigation told The Times that the U.S. Marshals Service had come close to arresting Polanski half a dozen times or so over the past few decades -- though several of those opportunities presented themselves in the last two years.

    "For one reason or another, it just didn't work out," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the case was ongoing. "There are so many variables."

    The source said Polanski always was very careful about when and where he traveled. But as new questions arose in recent years about the fairness of his case, the source said Polanski appeared to become more at ease about travel.



    Parent
    The LA DA office source's (none / 0) (#152)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 09:48:03 AM EST
    counter-argument of a 4-11 hot pursuit to arrest Polanski seems hosed with the twin jets of imprecision and incredulity. "..the U..S. Marshall's Service had come close to arresting Polanski half a dozen times or so over the past few decades--though several of those opportunities presented themselves in the last two years."  This could reasonably be interpreted as over the past 30 years, no close arrests for maybe ten years, 5 to 7 over a period of 20 years, of which 3 or 4 were over the last two years.  Of course, there were those "variables", such as his not always being in residence at Gstaad.  While it is important that Polanski now face the music, there also seems to be a  curious and parallel story going on.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#154)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 10:14:14 AM EST
    it is entirely plausible that the current proceeding is a reaction to Polanski's act of chutzpah in filing a motion to dismiss last year before the very sovereign whose jurisdiction he had fled.  But I'm not sure that bothers me.  It's one thing to be a fugitive, it's another thing to request affirmative relief on the grounds that one has been successful as a fugitive.

    Parent
    There's even an argument to be made that (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 10:48:33 AM EST
    doing what the LA DA's doing makes a lot of sense- its one thing to escape the law, its completely another thing to flaunt ones escape on the grounds of wealth and power- it makes a mockery of society.

    Parent
    Thanks, but not entirely convinced. (none / 0) (#115)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 06:57:13 PM EST
    The accusations that the LA County DA was not serious about extradition (Do you think, after almost 30 years?) caught their attention this July.  And, all those "variables" must have been a bear.   My goodness, curiouser and curiouser.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 08:50:58 AM EST
    thank you for once again being the voice of reason.
    Seen From France (none / 0) (#150)
    by Oceandweller on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 09:34:02 AM EST
    Polanski support is not as massive as the MSM would like us to think. Because it is rape we are talking about, and whether RP has some extenuating excuses -which are real - fact remains, he fled and Justice was not served. Many of the supporters of the first hour could barely hide a hiccup when the truth emerged...Rape...So yes, he needs to face a judge, and the crime having been committed in the US, the Court should be american. But amends can certainly be heard in court. Who can say if RP has fully mentally healthy, do the facts of his miserable jewish chilhood trying to survive, the awful murder of his pregnant wife and the vile accusations against him when she was killed can help anyone keep a sound mind. I dont think so...
    Scarred he cant but be, and he is now an old man so Clemency can be pleaded but just like the nazis cant escape justice, Polanski cant escape it because he is now old. And the mismanagements of a fair trial in 1978 cant but be added to the fracas. Justice must be served, but justice needs to be lightfooted too.
    Not an easy thing as there is a world of difference between the man with a lost soul in 77 and the peaceful man of 2009. But one thing is sure, he and Sharon would have best stayed in Europe because the American Justice system has never been fait to him...
    CHARLES MANSON PROVES IT.

    There we go (none / 0) (#162)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 10:52:37 AM EST
    I'm not calling for a massive sentence- but excusing any justice at all due to age or infirmity - seems to me to smack of the "mercy for the parent killer on the grounds of being an orphan."  This is very much a criminal who escaped due to wealth and power and then is claiming that his succuess in escape is the grounds for dismissal.

    Parent
    Interesting about Poland (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 10:09:47 AM EST
    Since just this past week they announced they plan to enforce chemical castration of conviceted pedophiles.

    Really (none / 0) (#160)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 10:45:16 AM EST
    isn't it unfair to ever ask anyone to show up for sentencing anywhere- I mean c'mon even something like the T&R committee's in South Africa and Rwanda could be judgemental man, why should anyone ever take the chance of prison.  

    Roman Polanski to Fight Extradition, Seek Bail | 155 comments (155 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment