Roman Polanski
Polanski Getting Desperate
Posted by: David Ring
May 11, 2010
Roman Polanski's attempts to have the Los Angeles courts sentence him in absentia are not succeeding. Polanski sought a ruling from the California Court of Appeal that would force the trial judge to sentence him without having to appear in Los Angeles. The Court of Appeal refused his request. Polanski's next two moves appeared a bit desperate.
First, Polanski went public. He issued a statement on a website claiming he was being unfairly singled out by L.A. prosecutors and courts. He said all they wanted was to serve him up to the media. Polanski's comments had little or no effect here. Maybe the comments were intended for the media in Europe, and particularly the Swiss authorities who continue to hold him under house arrest pending extradition. But they didn't help his cause much in California.
Next, Polanski sought to make public the recent testimony provided by the prosecutor who handled the rape case against Polanski. The prosecutor's testimony was taken because it might be needed in future proceedings and rumor has it he could be unavailable in the future to testify. Polanski asked the court to make that testimony available to the public (in other words, the media). The court refused to do so.
Polanski is running out of options.
Polanski One Step Closer to L.A.?
Posted by: David Ring
April 26, 2010
California's Court of Appeal rejected Roman Polanski's bid to force a trial judge to sentence Polanski in absentia. Polanski had filed an emergency appeal to the appellate court seeking a ruling that would allow Polanski to stay in Switzerland and, at the same time, order the trial judge in California to proceed with a decision on sentencing.
Polanski now remains in limbo. He is under house arrest in Switzerland and cannot leave that country. He now has to wait and see if Swiss authorities will, in fact, extradite him to the U.S. That could involve months more of legal wrangling. Or, Polanski could voluntarily return on his own and face the music. But, he has resisted taking that approach for fear he could be tossed in a California prison to serve more time after he fled California in the midst of his criminal case in the late 1970s.
Polanski now will probably work the Swiss legal system with the hope of getting the Swiss to decide against extradition. Polanski would then be free to return to France, but could not return to the U.S. Of course, he has not stepped foot on U.S. soil since his flight over 30 years ago.
Polanski Files Another Emergency Appeal
Posted by: David Ring
March 31, 2010
Roman Polanski's lawyers filed another emergency appeal in Los Angeles recently, again seeking to somehow bring the case to an end without having the film director come to Los Angeles and appear in court.
The latest wrinkle in the case is that the secret testimony of Roger Gunson, the district attorney who handled the Polanski case back in the 1970s, was recently taken and apparently revealed new details which could further support Polanski's claim of prosecutorial misconduct by other district attorneys back when Polanski's case was pending in the late 1970s.
Ultimately, it appears Polanski's real strategy is to somehow get the case back in front of the Los Angeles Court of Appeal because months ago that same court issued a favorable ruling for Polanski and also urged the trial court to resolve the case quickly. Since then, the trial court said it would only resolve the case quickly if Polanski returned to L.A. and appeared in court for a final sentencing. The stakes are too high for Polanski to do that -- he might get sentenced to prison in California. So, the proceedings have dragged on.
Polanski continues to be under house arrest in Switzerland. He would rather be there in his Swiss chalet wearing an ankle bracelet than risk coming to L.A. only to be sent to prison here.
Polanski's latest plea to the Court of Appeal here in L.A. appears to be an attempt to simply get in front of what Polanski thinks are appellate judges sympathetic to his cause and give those judges a chance to issue a ruling that basically says, "Enough already!" along with a mandate that ends the case once and for all.
Polanski In Limbo
Posted by: David Ring
February 03, 2010
Roman Polanski is in limbo. And he might be in limbo for a while. He sits in his Swiss home under house arrest, while Swiss authorities process an extradition order that would force Polanski to return to Los Angeles and face the charges that have long awaited his return. Yet, this week, Swiss authorities said that extraditing Polanski to the U.S. could take "months to a year" if Polanski appeals the extradition order that will eventually be issued by the Swiss court.
It seems that Polanski prefers biding time in his Swiss chalet in the Swiss Alps than voluntarily returning to L.A. and facing the music here once and for all.
The saga continues . . .
POLANSKI BOXED INTO A CORNER BY COURT
Posted by: David Ring
January 23, 2010
The trial judge presiding over the Roman Polanski criminal case ruled today that the court will NOT sentence Roman Polanski in abstentia, a remedy that had been suggested last month by the Court of Appeal as a means of bringing this long-running saga closer to a conclusion. Instead, Judge Peter Espinoza wants Polanski to surrender to authorities in L.A. first, and only then will the court inform Polanski what further punishment, if any, he will receive.
Polanski is now boxed into a corner. He is under house arrest in Switzerland. (There are worse places to be under house arrest, right?) The Swiss authorities are deciding if they have the right to force Polanski to go to L.A. against his will (extradition). Of course, Polanski could waive extradition and voluntarily agree to come to L.A. and surrender to authorities here. Or Polanski can fight both the Swiss extradition process and the L.A. proceedings while remaining under house arrest. But, at age 76, he's running out of viable options that would allow him to escape this legal morass unscathed.
Polanski should roll the dice and make the following move: Waive extradition and come to L.A. voluntarily and surrender to authorities; make a sincere, humble and meaningful apology for not only sexually assaulting the 13-year old victim back in the 1970s, but also for fleeing the jurisdiction when he realized the proceedings were going sideways on him; and then throw himself on the mercy of the court and Judge Espinoza. Given the bad behavior by the judge and a wayward prosecutor back in the 1970s that clearly tainted the proceedings against Polanski, there is a decent chance that Judge Espinoza would then put an end to everything by simply ruling that Polanski had served enough time for his crime. Polanski would be free to return to France and live out his life; the criminal case would be over.
The downside is risky: Judge Espinoza may feel that Polanski got off easy back in the 1970s and deserves further punishment not only for the sex assault, but for fleeing the country as well. The judge could then sentence Polanski to some serious prison time here in California. At age 76, Polanski's remaining days could be behind bars. But, would the judge really sentence a 76-year old with Polanski's standing to hard time after so many years have passed and so much has been said about the misconduct of the prosecutor and the original judge?
So what is Polanski to do? Come to L.A. with his hat in hand and ask forgiveness? Fight the Swiss until they force him to L.A. and show no contrition along the way? Or sit tight in his Swiss home under house arrest and fight the good fight on all fronts, his life in limbo the entire time? Big decision. No easy answer.
COURT OF APPEAL SHOWS ROMAN POLANSKI THE WAY OUT?
Posted by: David Ring
January 23, 2010
In a fascinating 70-page opinion published December 21, 2009, the California Court of Appeal issued its take on the continuing Roman Polanski legal saga.
The quick background: Polanski, the famous director, admitted to unlawful sex with a 13-year old girl back in the late 1970s. He was in his 40s at the time. A plea-bargain was reached where Polanski would do little, if any, time in prison. But then things got complicated. The judge (Judge Laurence Rittenband, since deceased) apparently got caught up in how the media and public would perceive the light sentence. Then, a prosecutor (David Wells, since retired) who was not assigned to the case but who had the judge's ear convinced the judge that he was going soft on Polanski. Polanski was supposed to return to court for a hearing that would basically set him free, but then learned the judge had changed his tune and was about to send him back to jail and then deport him from the U.S. Polanski fled the country just days before the hearing; he has never stepped foot in the U.S. since.
In 1997, the situation was almost resolved. If Polanski returned to the U.S. for a televised court hearing, the case would basically be dropped. Polanski refused. He didn't want the hearing televised.
In 2008, the film "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" was released. The film made a strong case for serious misconduct by the prosecutor and Judge Rittenband. The prosecutor, David Wells, has since recanted much of what he said in that movie.
In 2009, Polanski asked the L.A. Superior Court to dismiss the entire case based on the evidence brought out in the film. The court said it could only consider doing so if Polanski first showed up in court - in L.A. Polanski declined to do so and appealed the decision, resulting in the appellate court's 70-page ruling.
(In the meantime, L.A. prosecutors maneuvered to have Polanski arrested in Switzerland in 2009.)
So, how do you sum up the staggering 70-page opinion? Here it goes: Polanski has darn good evidence of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct from way back when he was being sentenced in 1977-1978 that should preclude the court from forcing Polanski to serve more prison time now, in 2010. Polanski, however, is not entitled to a "get out of more jail time" free card unless he follows the proper procedural steps to reach that point. In other words, Polanski has to play out the case by either returning to California for sentencing or being sentenced in absentia. Then he can raise all of the misconduct arguments and, if those arguments are accepted, a fair result should be no more prison time and an end to the case.
Two things become crystal clear from the appellate court's decision: (1) The case was seriously tainted by the judge and the wayward prosecutor back in the 1970s, and (2) the court wants this case to end - and soon. "We exhort all participants in this extended drama to place the integrity of the criminal justice system above the desire to punish any one individual, whether for his offense or for his flight. . . . We encourage all participating parties to do their utmost to ensure that this matter now draws to a close in a manner that fully addresses the issues of due process and fundamental fairness raised by the events of long ago."
The court has paved the way for Polanski and the L.A. District Attorney's office to end the saga with both sides saving face. The question now is will these folks follow the court's sage advice?
