Should Roman Polanksi return to face court for rape?

[Merlot]

Hello all,

Here is the simple Wiki summary of the facts to avoid bias on either side of the issue:

In 1977, Polanski was arrested in Los Angeles and pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", a 13-year-old girl (he was 44 years old at the time).[8] Released after a 42-day psychiatric evaluation, Polanski fled to France, has had a U.S. arrest warrant outstanding since 1978,[9] and an international arrest warrant since 2005.[10] Polanski for many years avoided visits to countries that were likely to extradite him, such as the United Kingdom, and traveled mostly between France, where he resides, and Poland. As a French citizen, he was protected in France by the country's limited extradition with the U.S.[11] On September 26, 2009, he was arrested, at the request of U.S. authorities, by Swiss police, on arrival at Zürich Airport while trying to enter Switzerland[10] to pick up a lifetime achievement "Golden Icon Award" from the Zurich Film Festival.[12][13]

The sticking point seems to be that there was a plea bargain for a 42 day sentence the original judge seemed to be going to renege ( go back ) on. So Polanski fled the country to avoid a harsher sentence he thought was coming.

The question: should Roman Polanski return to face the court system?

Hmmmm,

Merlot

 

[Morris Wanchuk]

the question is,
what is he facing if he comes back with no deal?
how long in jail?

of course,he will have top $$$ lawyers finding ways to get him free.
instead of wasting his money on lawyers,
he should come back with a new deal and pay a huge "get out of jail free" fine to california.

As far as I know,
he has kept his nose clean since he fled.
the victim was paid off nicely.
make a deal so both sides,polanski and the los angeles DA,
can both agree that the original judge was a moron and that polanski is a pedophile,
and then throw him back out of the USA,never to return.
then see if other countries like England and Canada will let him visit as a convicted sex offender.

 

[Kepler]

the question is, what is he facing if he comes back with no deal? how long in jail?

Who knows? No one else who runs away gets to know what they will face when they are finally captured. He should face the same justice as anyone else.

 

[naughtylady]

No, the victim herself is not interested in testifying. she has moved on with her life. Making her testify will only rip open old scars and make her suffer all over again. If she were still suffering over the incident, that would be a different story. ...and that is two cents worth.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[Time to Punt]

No, the victim herself is not interested in testifying. she has moved on with her life. Making her testify will only rip open old scars and make her suffer all over again. If she were still suffering over the incident, that would be a different story. ...and that is two cents worth.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

Wasn't he convicted and was just awaiting sentencing? If so the victim would not have to testify I don't think.....unless a victim impact statement is mandatory - which seems hard to believe.

 

[Henry Jones]

The trial has already taken place, he is just going back to serve time. If he gets off then the justice system will fall apart. It will seem that well known or rich people can get off criminal charges when the average shmo has to serve hard time.

 

[Time to Punt]

The trial has already taken place, he is just going back to serve time. If he gets off then the justice system will fall apart. It will seem that well known or rich people can get off criminal charges when the average shmo has to serve hard time.

Well I'm not sure that's true. If he was an average shmo do you really think that they would have set up this operation with the Swiss police after 32 years and spend all the money on extradition. I actually think it works in reverse now.

 

[Techman]

Merlot, the wiki summary you posted leaves out a lot of important information such as the following, also from Wikipedia:

Under the terms of the plea agreement, according to the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported toChino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, but after an alleged conversation with LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported". In response to the threat of imprisonment, Polanski fled the United States.

You will notice in the section I highlited that he left the US and returned to serve out his plea agreement. This shows good faith on his part and it was only after he was informed of the judge going back on the agreement that he fled.

Now we hear from the victim:

In a 2003 interview, Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it." In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever — besides me — and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."

The bottom line is that if the judge had stuck to the plea bargain, this would have all been over in 1978. Polanski would have been able to go on with his life and the girl involved could have lived her life in peace and total anonymity. But because of one judge committing judicial misconduct by discussing the case with someone he shouldn't have and allowing that person to influence his decision, according to reports of what happened, we are at the point we are at today.

It seems to me that people aren't looking for justice as much as they are looking for revenge.

 

[Merlot]

Just announced on CNN: There was no judicial misconduct.

Hello all,

Just announced on CNN, the prosecutor in the Polanski rape case has just said he lied about the conversation with the judge that had created the point of misconduct and there was NO JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT at all. According to CNN legal analysts the HBO interview in which the prosecutor says he lied about the misconduct is not admissible in court because it was not under oath and cannot be used by Polanski's lawyers. But as legal testimony or not, the admission by the prosecutor removes any argument by Polanski's lawyers that he will not be treated fairly in the U.S. courts and increases the likelihood of extradition back to the U.S.

So boys, if you based your point on the reneging of the plea deal being due to judicial misconduct that argument has been eliminated, if the new admission is true. Considering such an admission would put the prosecutor in a very bad position ethically it's seems like quite a risk to say it for nothing or if it's not true.

You will notice in the section I highlited that he left the US and returned to serve out his plea agreement. This shows good faith on his part and it was only after he was informed of the judge going back on the agreement that he fled.

Okay Techman,

That's fine. It does look honorable to return to court to serve time. However, that was when it was most favorable to him, and his honorable status ended as soon as he chose to run. Now that the prosecutor says he lied about the conversation with the judge, it looks much more like there was no misconduct and the judge just didn't want to accept the plea agreement, which he is entitled to do.

Federal Rules for Plea Agreement:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule11.htm

(3) Judicial Consideration of a Plea Agreement.

(A) To the extent the plea agreement is of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the court may accept the agreement, reject it, or defer a decision until the court has reviewed the presentence report.

(B) To the extent the plea agreement is of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(B), the court must advise the defendant that the defendant has no right to withdraw the plea if the court does not follow the recommendation or request.

(4) Accepting a Plea Agreement.

If the court accepts the plea agreement, it must inform the defendant that to the extent the plea agreement is of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the agreed disposition will be included in the judgment.

(5) Rejecting a Plea Agreement.

If the court rejects a plea agreement containing provisions of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the court must do the following on the record and in open court (or, for good cause, in camera):

(A) inform the parties that the court rejects the plea agreement;

(B) advise the defendant personally that the court is not required to follow the plea agreement and give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea; and

(C) advise the defendant personally that if the plea is not withdrawn, the court may dispose of the case less favorably toward the defendant than the plea agreement contemplated.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Techman]

Who did he lie to, Merlot? If he lied to Polanski and his lawyer causing him to flee then the prosecutor is the one who is to blame for everything. I can't really comment on this until I know the details about who he lied to and exactly what he lied about.

 

[JustBob]

1. David Wells was NOT a prosecutor in the Polanski case. He had nothing to do with the case at all. But he admitted that he had ex parte communications with judge Rittenband and tried to influence him.

2. Last January, Wells told The Times that he regretted making the statements but never said they were untrue.

3. Now he said he lied. So he's either confused or a lier or both.

4. Wells statements in the HBO documentary make up a portion but far from all of the misconduct allegations Polanski's attorneys leveled at Rittenband for his handling of the original case.

5. All parties involved, the Polanski defense team, Geimer's attorney AND the prosecution
called Rittenband's conduct of the case "frivolous, contradictory, erratic, and profoundly injudicious".

"Rittenband was so frivolous and uncertain that he sought and followed advice from a cub reporter, his two girlfriends, and his bailiff."

So no, the judicial misconduct argument has not been eliminated. And perhaps all this outrage over Polanski should be directed at the US legal system, for messing up and making a circus of every high profile celebrity trial they get involved with, and at law enforcement for waiting 30+ years to arrest Polanski. They are the ones who should be blamed for deriliction of duty, and for trivializing the rape of a 13 y/o girl.

 

[Merlot]

1. David Wells was NOT a prosecutor in the Polanski case. He had nothing to do with the case at all. But he admitted that he had ex parte communications with judge Rittenband and tried to influence him.

2. Last January, Wells told The Times that he regretted making the statements but never said they were untrue.

3. Now he said he lied. So he's either confused or a lier or both.

4. Wells statements in the HBO documentary make up a portion but far from all of the misconduct allegations Polanski's attorneys leveled at Rittenband for his handling of the original case.

5. All parties involved, the Polanski defense team, Geimer's attorney AND the prosecution
called Rittenband's conduct of the case "frivolous, contradictory, erratic, and profoundly injudicious".

"Rittenband was so frivolous and uncertain that he sought and followed advice from a cub reporter, his two girlfriends, and his bailiff."

So no, the judicial misconduct argument has not been eliminated. And perhaps all this outrage over Polanski should be directed at the US legal system, for messing up and making a circus of every high profile celebrity trial they get involved with, and at law enforcement for waiting 30+ years to arrest Polanski. They are the ones who should be blamed for deriliction of duty, and for trivializing the rape of a 13 y/o girl.

Hello JB,

Thanks for the clarification. I had to write down a blurb of news quickly and I may have misunderstood who Wells was. However, despite using some better identification facts some of this is your opinion only.

While whatever went on in the legal or judicial procedural process seems to have been questionable, blaming this mess on the legal system is misplaced.

Remember two things that are the fulcrums of all of this:

1. NO RAPE, NO LEGAL MESS!

2. DON'T RUN, DON'T CONTINUE THE MESS!

The worst parts of this case start with Polanski. His rape of a 13 year old is the case. His running kept this an issue for him, the court, the public, and especially the victim he also continues to victimize by running for 32 years.

BTW! The Polanski case reminds me of an old adage that says something about jail/prison being for the poor. Is it justice that a wealthy and famous person can buy off the crime while those without money who commit the same crime do the time behind bars?????

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[JustBob]

While whatever went on in the legal or judicial procedural process seems to have been questionable, blaming this mess on the legal system is misplaced.

NO RAPE, NO LEGAL MESS! As in don't be a celebrity and rape someone cause we'll screw up your trial! Really?. The US justice system screwed up and then let him go. I can't fathom how this blame is misplaced.

DON'T RUN, DON'T CONTINUE THE MESS! He's been at large for 30+ years, because of the above ineptitude, and suddenly someone wakes up from their stupor and goes "hmmmm maybe we should actually make an effort to get him!". That's pathetic and the blame is warranted.

And how is he victimizing the victim when she forgave him, repeatedly asked for the charges to be dropped, and repeatedly argued that she was feeling victimized by the US justice system.

In 1997, after Geimer forgave Polanski, an LA judge offered to drop all charges against him if he showed up in court in the US. The only condition: that the entire proceedings be televised. Polanski declined to be part of that circus.

BTW! The Polanski case reminds me of an old adage that says something about jail/prison being for the poor. Is it justice that a wealthy and famous person can buy off the crime while those without money who commit the same crime do the time behind bars?????

Perhaps, but 30+ years later, the old adage works backwards, i.e. if this wasn't a wealthy famous person, nobody would give a shit.

 

[Techman]

...and especially the victim he also continues to victimize by running for 32 years.

Merlot, why is it that even the victim herself doesn't blame Polanski for the situation and actually blames the justice system but you insist on putting all the blame solely on Polanski's shoulders? He hasn't been victimizing her for over 30 years, the justice system has by continually recounting the intimate details of the case in the press.

They have had numerous chances over the years to have Polanski arrested in Switzerland but have never bothered to do so. Why now all of a sudden? Why bring this all back up in the press and once again subject the woman to all the details of the case again?

Do I blame Polanski for the original rape, of course. Do I blame him for running when it looked that he was going to be made an example of, against the deal that was set and eventually deported? No, I don't. If you are going to get deported and never permitted to return after going to prison anyways, well you might as well skip the prison part and just leave on your own.

As I wrote in an earlier post, there's a lot of blame to go around here and not all of it belongs on Polanski's shoulders.

 

[Merlot]

NO RAPE, NO LEGAL MESS! As in don't be a celebrity and rape someone cause we'll screw up your trial! Really?. The US justice system screwed up and then let him go. I can't fathom how this blame is misplaced.

Are you saying the rape itself is not the problem, it's that the guilty celebrity rapist is worth too much publicity. Poor celebrities. All that fame and wealth and they can't get a fair trial. Should I suggest a new legal code stating that celebrities get a free pass on crime because trial would get too much publicity. Oooops, we should add high profile cases like the "Son of Sam" because there is also massive publicity in such cases even though the killer wasn't a celebrity previously. Oooops again, child kidnappings, corporate scams, terrorist plots also get way too much publicity. Maybe it's easier to outline who should be tried. Poor Timothy McVeigh. If only he hadn't killed so many in such a big way he might have gotten a fair trial and be having a beer today. But don't worry. OJ won...for a while.

DON'T RUN, DON'T CONTINUE THE MESS! He's been at large for 30+ years, because of the above ineptitude, and suddenly someone wakes up from their stupor and goes "hmmmm maybe we should actually make an effort to get him!". That's pathetic and the blame is warranted.

Are you saying the rules are if you don't catch a rapist quickly the legal system is to blame, not his running to where he can't be extradited. Cool!

And how is he victimizing the victim when she forgave him, repeatedly asked for the charges to be dropped, and repeatedly argued that she was feeling victimized by the US justice system.

Well surprise, the victim doesn't want to go through all of this again after Polanski dodged the court for 32 years. She doesn't want the publicity after she got on with her life. Isn't that surprising.

In 1997, after Geimer forgave Polanski, an LA judge offered to drop all charges against him if he showed up in court in the US. The only condition: that the entire proceedings be televised. Polanski declined to be part of that circus.
.

You are saying the victim forgave him, the LA Judge offered to drop charges, what he wanted in the beginning, then, and now, and he still refused to show. Well hell, now I understand his reluctance to be exposed as the rapist he is on television, especially when so many already knew all about him. Obviously refusing to accept that offer shows he's a poor victim no one will give a break to. And you dare blame the court for continuing this and victimizing the victim when he passed on his best opportunity to end all of this 12 years ago.

Perhaps, but 30+ years later, the old adage works backwards, i.e. if this wasn't a wealthy famous person, nobody would give a shit.

Your implication here in my case is nonsense. I have known about Polanski for many years and feel the same way now as before this new round. I don't care if you believe that, but if you insist on making the same sort of presumption to speak for how I think then you have no credibility or honor.

Merlot, why is it that even the victim herself doesn't blame Polanski for the situation and actually blames the justice system but you insist on putting all the blame solely on Polanski's shoulders? He hasn't been victimizing her for over 30 years, the justice system has by continually recounting the intimate details of the case in the press.

Where did I say all? But where does this whole thing start? Did the prosecutor rape? Did the judge rape? Did the jury rape? Does any of this happen if Polanski used his wealth to get his rocks off with an ADULT escort when he could probably afford dozens with the money he probably paid to escape jail or prison for this crime.

Do I blame Polanski for the original rape, of course. Do I blame him for running when it looked that he was going to be made an example of, against the deal that was set and eventually deported? No, I don't. If you are going to get deported and never permitted to return after going to prison anyways, well you might as well skip the prison part and just leave on your own.

But didn't our friend JustBob just point out that all of this would have been over in 1997 in exactly the way Polanski wanted, "Scott Free" if he had just decided to show up. He was given the opportunity to have it exactly as he wanted and be free of any worries about being hunted by the law and he said: "NO!" And you still blame the court for continuing this mess.

ish,

Merlot

 

[Techman]

But didn't our friend JustBob just point out that all of this would have been over in 1997 in exactly the way Polanski wanted "Scott Free" if he had just decided to show up. He was given the opportunity to have it exactly as he wanted and be free of any worries about being hunted by the law and he said: "NO!" And you still blame the court for continuing this mess.

Yes I still blame the court. If they didn't insist on it being televised and turned into a media circus he may very well have come back. Why should it be turned into an episode of 'Judge Judy'? That was hardly having it "exactly as he wanted" as you put it.

The court screwed up. If they had stuck to the deal that had been agreed upon, none of this would be happening today. THEY screwed up.

And your comment that he should have called an escort is totally ridiculous. Considering that all he did to 'escape' as you put it was to buy a plane ticket and leave, it's a pitiful attempt to continue your arguement that is full of holes because you insist on supporting a useless justice system and the mistakes of an overzealous judge that has led them to this point.

There is absolutely no reason for him to return to the US to have this settled. It can easily be taken care of through his lawyers. Uphold the original deal or even require him to pay a large fine. But by insisting on his appearing in person, it gives the impression that they intend to throw him in prison. This entire situation is just sad and has caused too much pain for too many people for way too long.

 

[JustBob]

Here we go again....

"Are you saying..."

"Are you saying..."

No I'm not...

Nevermind I give up.

 

[Techman]

Here we go again....

"Are you saying..."

"Are you saying..."

No I'm not...

Nevermind I give up.

I agree. This is going around in circles. No more comments from me until there are actual developements to discuss.

 

[Merlot]

Yes I still blame the court. If they didn't insist on it being televised and turned into a media circus he may very well have come back. Why should it be turned into an episode of 'Judge Judy'? That was hardly having it "exactly as he wanted" as you put it.

The court screwed up. If they had stuck to the deal that had been agreed upon, none of this would be happening today. THEY screwed up.

And your comment that he should have called an escort is totally ridiculous. Considering that all he did to 'escape' as you put it was to buy a plane ticket and leave, it's a pitiful attempt to continue your arguement that is full of holes because you insist on supporting a useless justice system and the mistakes of an overzealous judge that has led them to this point.

There is absolutely no reason for him to return to the US to have this settled. It can easily be taken care of through his lawyers. Uphold the original deal or even require him to pay a large fine. But by insisting on his appearing in person, it gives the impression that they intend to throw him in prison. This entire situation is just sad and has caused too much pain for too many people for way too long.

Hmmm,

The ONLY real point you are making is a guilty rapist shouldn't go to prison because the court or judge seemed to back out of a plea bargain....for whatever reason. It amounts to excuses for a guilty man while thinking you know exactly how the judge was definitely going to act...SILLY!.

You are right. I shouldn't keep responding to the same repetitive points that I have already replied to and biased mischaracterizations either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yiYbCJitvQ Circles...yup.



Key figure in Polanski documentary says he lied
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY (AP) – 1 hour ago

LOS ANGELES — A former prosecutor said Wednesday he lied when he told a documentary film crew that he advised a judge handling Roman Polanski's sex case that he should send the director to prison.

The statement later became part of the basis for a move by Polanski's attorneys to dismiss the case against the fugitive director who was arrested in Switzerland on Saturday.

"They interviewed me in the Malibu courthouse when I was still a DA, and I embellished a story," David F. Wells said in an interview with The Associated Press about his statements to the makers of "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired."

"I'm a guy who cuts to the chase — I lied. It embarrasses the hell of me." he said.

Wells, 71, did not handle Polanski's case but was assigned to the courtroom where it was heard and had frequent interactions with the judge.

Wells said he was sorry about making the comments for the documentary.

"I cost the DA's office a lot of money and aggravation over this," said Wells, who retired as a prosecutor more than two years ago.

Polanski was accused of plying a 13-year-old girl with champagne and Quaaludes during a modeling shoot in 1977 and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy.

Facing life in prison if convicted, he agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse. In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and commute his sentence to the 42 days already served.

But Polanski fled the country Feb. 1, 1978, the day he was scheduled to be sentenced, after learning the judge told lawyers he planned to add more prison time to the sentence.

Polanski's attorneys later argued in a motion to dismiss the case that the communications between the judge and Wells were clear misconduct and violated Polanski's constitutional rights.

That motion was dismissed because Polanski was a fugitive at the time, though the judge acknowledged "substantial misconduct" in the original case. The matter is now in the hands of an appeals court.

One of Polanski's attorneys, Chad Hummel, declined to comment on Wells' comments. District Attorney's spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said the office also had no comment.

Marina Zenovich, who directed the film, did not return a phone message seeking comment.

Wells said he overstated his actions to the filmmakers because he was told the documentary would air in France, not the United States. The documentary aired on HBO.

In the documentary, Wells is depicted as conferring with the now-deceased trial judge Laurence J. Rittenband about Polanski's case. Wells says in the film the judge took his advice in deciding to renege on a plea bargain and give Polanski additional prison time.

"I made that up to make the stuff look better," Wells said. His admission was first reported in a story by former O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark on the Web site The Daily Beast.

Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal. She testified at the time that Polanski forced himself on her — which he acknowledged in his guilty plea — but has said she forgives him and wants the ordeal to be over.

Wells said he would testify in court that he lied and has offered to give a sworn declaration to prosecutors about his actions, in case they need it. No one from the district attorney's office has contacted him since he made the offer several months ago, he said.

Wells said he showed Rittenband a copy of a newspaper that pictured Polanski with girls at an Oktoberfest event. Wells said he never talked about potential sentences and the judge would have seen the paper anyway.

Wells said he still believes Polanski should receive a much stiffer sentence.

Yeah, the courts really bullied this guy by dropping 6 felony counts to commute his sentence to 42 days served.

Be real,

Merlot

 

[Techman]

Yeah, the courts really bullied this guy by dropping 6 felony counts to commute his sentence to 42 days served.

Maybe you should go through every case ever tried in the US and find every instance of plea bargains and start a crusade against each and every one of them. Plea bargains are a verr common thing whether you like it or not. They are part of the justice system and always will be. Just look at the deal that Homolka received here in Canada. Was it the right thing to do? Probably not when you look back on things, but the deal was made and it was kept to.

If you want to bitch about the deal, go right ahead. But that's life and when a deal is made, it should be kept. Besides, in this case the deal was made with the girl's welfare in mind to keep her from going through a rape trial which would have been extremely nasty, as they generally tend to be, not to aid Polanski. If the judge reneged on the deal, Polanski's guilty plea should have been voided and a trial held. You can't have it both ways. Either stick to the deal and accept the plea or go to trial.

So if they void the deal at any point in time, they should hold a trial. Seeing as it is highly doubtful that the woman would be willing to testify, the charges would be thrown out and he would walk out a free man. It would also be impossible to find an impartial jury at this point in time as everyone is aware of the circumstances of the case.

No matter what way you look at it, Polanski should walk.