While justice delayed may be justice denied, but justice appears to have caught up with Roman Polanski — just 31 years delayed. To the surprise of his family and lawyers, Swiss authorities arrested the seventy-six-year-old famous director on the outstanding international warrant.
Polanski was able to move freely in Europe for decades despite being one of the world’s best recognized fugitives.
He was detained when he arrived at Zurich airport and was being held in provisional detention in preparation for a possible extradition to the United States.
He has been avoiding arrest after his conviction in California for sex with a 13-year-old girl, Samantha Geime, at the home of Jack Nicholson. She claimed to have been drugged. She has since said that she forgives him.
Polanski fled before sentencing and relied on his fame and friends to continue his artistic work and opulent lifestyle.
Polanski’s lawyers have been trying to get the case dismissed, here. That effort may have backfired in drawing renewed attention to his case — and the fact that the California courts still want him arrested.
The French have been accused of protecting Polanski and he went to Zurich for its film festival, where he was going to receive a lifetime achievement award. France continues to defend Polanski and is working for his release, here.
If presented to a United States court, most judges would feel compelled to hit him with a heavy sentence due to his open contempt and flight from the prior court. This is a case where “celebrity justice” may be harsher than ordinary justice. For a prior column, click here.
A good point of comparison would be the sentence given to Sara Jane Olson (aka Kathleen Ann Soliah). She committed her crimes with the Symbionese Liberation Army (including kidnapping Patty Hearst) and was indicted in 1976. That was just one year before Polanski and remained a fugitive for 24 years (as opposed to Polanski’s 31 years). Moreover, she was in hiding as opposed to Polanski who was viewed as virtually taunting the court by living in the open and was seen as conveying that the wealthy could live by a separate set of rules than the rest of society.
Olson was just released (here) after seven years prison. She pleaded guilty in 2001 (unlike Polanski who pleaded guilty, she was not tried in the seventies). She received 20 years to life. She was released after seven years due to a decision of the parole board to reduce the sentence.
The man was a coward who flaunted his ability to avoid international justice.
This is incredible. You think 31 years is a long time. Was this the first time he went to Switzerland? Why all of a sudden is he arrested? If he was living the opulent life so claimed, why didn’t the CIA swoop down and get him? Where is Osama Bin Laden? Where is Jethro? Where is Waldo? Whats the rest of the story?
Time to set him free and let him go.
His partner at the time has years ago wanted to drop the whole case. He had to live a life of exile most of his life over this. The gov’ts in Europe are demanding he be freed.
This is just a feeding frenzy for the lawyers and legal workers.
Nothing good will come about by toturing this person now.
Set him free.
He took advantage of a thirteen year old girl. He’s lucky we’re still a civilized nation, otherwise I would be the first to buy tickets to see his hanging. There are certain crimes which just should not and cannot be forgotten, and I can’t think of a reason why this crime isn’t in that category. To hell with Polanski.
-Irish
Read the transcript outlining what he actually did to this child:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
He drugged, plied with alcohol, raped and sodomized a 13 year old child, then ran away to avoid punishment.
Time to be held accountable.
In this case justice delayed, may still be justice served. I have no problem with a life sentence here, assuming the allegations are true. And I believe flight is still evidence of guilt in most courtrooms.
Not having the ability to work and live in the US, for 31 years, is punishment enough. This man could accomplish a lot more, and he would be worth a lot more. We are dealing with a very talented man here, who went to a better film schools than 90% of American directors and actors.
Did he give alcohol and drugs to a minor? Yes he did, but he himself was under influence as well… all of them were under influence at that residence. Did he know that she was a minor? What was this minor doing there? Where were her parents?
I agree that “This is just a feeding frenzy for the lawyers and legal workers.”
His sentence was supposed to be another 50 or so days in prison, and people want to make a life sentence out of it, just because he fled. He admitted guilt 31 years ago, so why say that his fleeing is a proof, if it’s redundant.
People in the US get less for killing, and rape, and politicians get nothing for killing people overseas, so why compare him to someone who god 20-to-life in prison.
tammy:
“Not having the ability to work and live in the US, for 31 years, is punishment enough. This man could accomplish a lot more, and he would be worth a lot more. We are dealing with a very talented man here, who went to a better film schools than 90% of American directors and actors.
Did he give alcohol and drugs to a minor? Yes he did, but he himself was under influence as well… all of them were under influence at that residence. Did he know that she was a minor? What was this minor doing there? Where were her parents? ”
*********************
You must be a plant, but on the offchance you’re not:
I suspect 31 years living in European palaces and dining with celebrities passes as “punishment” in your world, but those of us with a functioning cerebral cortex know otherwise. Your attacks on the child victim and her family (“Where were her parents?”) are proof enough of your wrongheadedness, but to suggest that Polanski should expect some sort of mitigation of his sentence because of his alcohol/drug abuse calls to mind the case of the young man, who, after murdering his parents, begged the mercy of the court because he claimed he was now an orphan. Comical, if is wasn’t so pathetic.
@mespo727272
Hear, hear
I’ll have to say Roman isn’t a very sympathetic case of flight from prosecution. The law he’s accused of breaking is not unjust and as mespo pointed out, he’s hardly been hiding in the shadows and eating out of trash bins. Romans’ big punishment was . . . making films in Europe and hanging out in the French Riviera? Sorry, even a blind lady can tell the scales are off on that one.
This whole matter is weird from beginning to end. I don’t understand how he could have done what he did in the first place. I don’t understand why this particular case, other than because it involves a “celebrity”, has sucked so much time and energy from the criminal justice system when far more dangerous criminals roan freely among us. I don’t understand why the authorities refused any sort of settlement of the case after all this time. Everything about this case is just weird as hell.
BRING THAT RAPIST HOME AND LET HIM SERVE HIS TIME, LIKE THE CRIMINAL HE IS!
The fact that he is a “celebrity” and he RAN away from his own country makes this case as bad as it is and that he is a liar and a coward – and receiving benefits from another country – he drugged and raped a child. He admitted he drugged and raped the child. He is a CRIMINAL! And a COWARD, just like the FRENCH! HE ADMITTED HIS CRIME AND THEN RAN AWAY! He was convicted of a crime. Get it?
His films are really terrible.
After living the “High Life” for 31 years on the run it’s time for him to face the justice he deserves. Unlike Olsen who had to live in fear while in hiding this pedophile was able to indulge in the best life has to offer. If celebrity justice is more harsh its only becasue celebrities are able to skirt many of the rules which govern the rest of us.
He raped and sodomized a 13 year old girl (according to her grand jury testimony). From my assessment of the crime and similar crimes, in my opinion this was not the only time he raped a child–or an adult for that matter–it is the only time he got caught. He should rot in jail, to prove that justice is equal for all. I am appalled that the French and Poles are trying protecting this criminal.
Lock this child molester up for the rest of his miserable life! That is more than what he deserves! He deserves death, according to Old testament standards! It’s alright for his victim to forgive him. However, he still needs to be brought to justice, if for no other reason than to serve as an example to all the other pedophiles and child molesters out there that justice is a tireless hunter and it’s job is not complete until it has hunted you down! That goes for you, too, G. Smythe! And Tammy, you need a wake up call!! Seriously!
The long arm of Los Angeles County Justice and the great state of California flexes its’ legal and relentless muscle….
I am unclear why a man who admitted to raping a child and then fled after he pleaded guilty should be offered sympathy, let alone a free ride. He raped a child. He drugged her to make her compliant, then raped her. I have no doubt that the victim would like to have this go away, since she is reminded of that horror every time Polanski appears in the news, but once he is in prison (which is where you send a man who raped a child), his name will rightly disappear. People. He raped a child.
best article yet on this topic
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/
What of these allegations the original judge nixed the plea deal? Was there a negotiated agreement on the record with the exact amount of time and whatnot? Of course he can’t voluntarily absent himself from the jurisdiction, but, I’ve read the original judge (who is dead) stepped in it; causing him to run. If he is on record as to a deal, and there is a record or affidavits supporting the judge making ex-parte comments or statements indicating a legit motion to dq, this is a tough issue to examine even though there will be “celebrity justice.”
I ain’t defending a guy who raped someone (well, I am to an extent), but, it’s easy to let emotions cloud one’s judgment here. The motion to dismiss was not heard on the merits. The merits of the defense motion are not discussed here. I agree, even Quixote would turn around before moving to DQ the entire LA bench, but, I’m curious (sue me) as to the sharp legal analysis here… specifically WTF did the the original judge do, why did Polanski think the deal was going to be nixed, is there merit to that claim… etc.
If Polanski’s motion (bounced only b/c his was a little out of town) is heard on the merits, what then? Direct contempt? BFD. Do the terms of the original deal apply and how do they jive with the dead judge’s comments if any? The original deal was allegedly a cakewalk. Easy to get blinded here. What if the judge went off the reservation? Defendants skip sentencing or turn in dates all the time and it’s not a big deal unless they plead to the max with a caveat of mitigation upon turn in. Here, we have that, plus, some questions that will unfortunately get lost in translation.
Basically, this thing is hairier than most give it credit for. Not because people think what he did was morally o.k. (it’s sick), but because the original deal was light and he ran. Folks use that as a pretext for screwing Polanski over. I want the truth and a deal enforced if he’s right. Hit him for contempt. That’s the law. And even then, I can think of a defense. Reasonable perception the judge would be unfair based on statements. Dude has a defense.
Cube:
“Dude has a defense.”
*******************
“Dude” might have something — more than likely an extended stay at the expense of the California taxpayers. However, I am wondering what defense you might have to the charge of intellectual littering that you deposited here.
Alan,
Thanks for the link. That Salon piece was very cleverly analyzed and argued.
@Cube: This thing is hairy only if you are distracted by all of the irrelevant arguments being made in his defense. In most jurisdictions, judges make the decision on sentencing and are under no obligation to honor a recommendation from the prosecution, even if it is part of a plea agreement. (Given the fact the Polanski FORCIBLY RAPED A CHILD, the judge would have been well within the mainstream of jurisprudence to insist on jail time.) Polanski was no doubt advised of this by his high-priced lawyers prior to pleading guilty, but if not, he could have moved to have the plea vacated and go to trial on the merits. He elected instead to flee and become a fugitive from the law. It has now caught up with him, and he will hopeful finally pay for his crime.
mespo,
Intellectual littering. lol. That’s just too useful a phrase not to use.
@mespo727272
Way to critically analyze the arguments. “Intellectual littering.” It that ain’t the pot calling the kettle a moose with lipstick.
Now, you can run your argument under a bridge with those who dwell there, but the fact remains you offer not one kernel of argument against the defense. This is not to say the defense wins the day, only that the argument is muted by dolts who argue with an appeal to emotion.
I don’t claim to know the answer. I recognize an argument, that if true (and a higher court in CA already recognized substantial misconduct w/o ruling on the issue), is a scary thought. The idea is for justice to be blind. If its’ true that a deal was struck, and the judge went off the reservation and improperly nixed a negotiated deal, that is a scary thought. Try this. Ignore the substantive offense because I’m not sure you can handle exploring the alternative argument without running home. Respectfully.
Everyone is sooooooooo happy to play Mother May I with the Constitution. Used only when it’s a convenient argument nowadays. Not saying I’m right, only that most ignore valid arguments (like you) and cannot ferret out issues that, as Prof. Turley points out are missed b/c Polanski flew the coop.
Assume for argument’s sake the judge improperly interfered in a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent plea. Then Polanski fled. Defense burden is high, but if met, what then? A contempt charge in state court? C’mon. That’s weak. I don’t ignore the underlying offense. Morally, it’s indefensible. You however ignore the argument. Intuitively, I may want Polanski to go down. Viscerally I do. However, you simply skirt by the question I pose and take b.s. shots. Bring the A game bub.
If anyone has a copy of the plea colloquy, I’d be curious to read it. If there is a victim statement as to the plea, let’s see it. I guess for some, justice isn’t blind. She looks at train wrecks and is a rubbernecker in need of a chiropractic work.
Where is Vincent Bugliosi when we need him?
Cube:
I am aware of nothing requiring a California judge to accept a plea deal simply because one was proposed or even made. Your “analysis” consists of idle speculation, and the lament of a victim who is tired of both the case and the publicity that adversely affects her and her family. You may wish to see a Constitutional ghost behind every prosecution, but here there seems to be little evidence to support either the defendant’s innocence (flight to avoid punishment seems to handle this issue)or his claimed denial of due process. It’s worth remembering that Constitutionally compliant criminal proceedings are the norm and not the exception. The burden is on the fugitive to prove his denial of due process and that seems difficult if one is unwilling to come to court. After 31 years, I consider those claims waived. To conjure issues where there is little evidence to support them is the basis for my observation of intellectual littering.
You simply fail to address the merits of the motion to dismiss filed. Now you make some cover with a response. Whatever.
I freely admit I don’t know the answers, but, don’t use as some pretext the true littering from before. The real defense here is essentially the one the lawyers have presented. The motion to dismiss was kicked not on the merits, but b/c he absented himself.
“After 31 years, I consider those claims waived.” Now, you started up with the ad-hominems and argument from emotion, so, I must ask… Is that the law of Uranus? C’mon. Sometimes error is so bad, we have something for that contingency…
Something called “fundamental error” you may want to examine. I’m not saying it’s there. It’s a tough burden the defense must meet. But, these claims aren’t made by me. It’s the gravamen, as I understand it, of the motion. This is what defense attorney’s do. And, what if the judge’s misconduct rises to a level that mandates a time served deal? If so, later.
A judge can nix a deal before it’s entered into. I agree. However, if a defendant begins to serve the sentence and the judge changes the rules, that’s another story. The motions to DQ the entire LA Bench is absurd, but as to this judge (who is dead) there are problems. If you have a copy of the motion to dismiss, link it. I’ve read the higher court made some findings of misconduct but did not hear the claim b/c he wasn’t there.
Show me the links to the necessary information you willfully blind yourself to. I hope it’s not there. And, let it be known I think the bastard should pay. But, the claims should be examined fairly. With a blind eye. Not some pithy comment you fail to save face with. Send the links of the colloquy. Or the motion. Why not look at it? Are you afraid?
Here is the link: CA Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza found “substantial misconduct” on the original case of Polanski. (AP) http://bit.ly/187PZu
Don’t know if you’re a lawyer, but the point is, this little fact is virtually ignored by the media. And talking heads. Don’t claim to know everything. I know there’s more to know. I want a serious discussion. Apparently, you know it all.
Cube: There’s this little thing called an appeals process to handle issues like you mentioned above. Polanski’s high priced attorneys no doubt would have advised him at the time that any judicial or prosecutorial misconduct would create grounds for appeal. I seriously doubt they advised him to flee the country. One would assume he made that bad decision on his own. I don’t think he has any valid grounds to fight extradition, though he may have grounds to challenge the misconduct in the original handling of the case ONCE HE PHYSICALLY PRESENTS HIMSELF IN CALIFORNIA.
I think what disgusts people is the parade of celebrities decrying the “grave injustice” against Polanski, being sought for an offense which nowadays carries a comparatively harsh sentence(appropriately harsh, in my view). But Polanski didn’t want to do a day in jail, so he fled.
cube:
““After 31 years, I consider those claims waived.” Now, you started up with the ad-hominems and argument from emotion,…”
**************
I fail to see how our dilettante’s failure to note any appeal to this claimed injustice for 31 years does not constitute waiver or laches. If one can sit on his rights for 31 years, he can sit on them forever. Maybe we can talk Charles Manson into appealing his case. That’s only 38 years of sitting,and he’s just as “innocent” as Roman!
Polanski agreed to be held accountable. He pleaded guilty. He did so according to a deal the government freely made. In fact, the government had the upper hand. If the government wanted more, it should have bargained for more. You don’t get what’s fair, you get what you negotiate.
But then the lunatic judge–whom everybody agrees was an unstable, unpredicable nut job–announced that he was not going to accept the deal. And he announced that he was going to (yet again) behave unpredictably. Fine, but the thing is that Polanski had already entered his guilty plea. He couldn’t now just accept the fact that the judge wasn’t going along with the deal, and go to trial instead. Polanski’s hands were tied and he had to go in front of a narcissistic, possibly sociopathic, power-mad, headline-seeking judge. (Extra point question: What percentage of the population is sociopathic, and is the percentage of sociopathic judges higher or lower than that?) Anybody who doesn’t flee, if they have French citizenship, where they will not be extradited, is a fool.
The California prosecutors and judge should abide by the origional deal. Next best is that they throw out the guilty plea and go to trial, but Polanski would be fool to set foot in the U.S. voluntarily based on anybody’s word.
This judge should be postumously disbarred. He has made many people’s lives more difficult. If this judge had not sought out this case, and if it had gone beofe any other judge, the deal would have been over and done 30 years ago.
It dosn’t matter, he wil set foot on this soil, in “chains”. U.S. Marshalls will personally escort him back to Los Angeles California. He will be greeted by the Los Angeles County Sheriff at LAX. Polanski is certainly know victim, he is a pedophile by definition and through his actions and is guilty of committing a felony in the state of California. He skipped before sentencing and the “deal” was not carved in stone with the D.A. The judge wanted to sit down and listen to Mr. Polanski explain himself as to “why he should get a more lenient sentence”. Before this could take place he fled and has been a fugitive for over thirty years. Get your facts straight. The CDC awaits his arrival. Welcome to Machine!
Mighty Harrison, the judge was “sociopathic”. Do you understand what you are saying? Like so many on this blog, you use “loaded” words that would make most people scratch their head in utter bewilderment! This is a deeply ingrained personality disorder that develops over a period of many years. In males this personality disorder develops at about the age of 4-5 and in females at the onset of puberty. The manifestaions of this personality disorder are more dramatic and socially intolerable when presented by males, due to the “deleterious” nature of this personality disorder. Secondly, because the judge was irresponsible and incapable of performing his duties as a judge in the courts of Los Angeles, does not assign him to the ranks of “sociopathy”, he may have had some “traits” as many of us do, but a “full” blown personality disorder? Maybe you need to rethink the words you want to use. One blogger, who is a regular here, loves to refer to people who disagree with him as being “delusional” or suffering from “Borderline Personality Disorder”. He to needs to find more accurate words to convey his arguments and sentiments. You are a very bright guy, you will find the words…
TMH:
“But then the lunatic judge–whom everybody agrees was an unstable, unpredicable nut job…”
**************
Prove it.
The judge was just doing this job. Polanski had not “already been sentenced to jail and begun serving his sentence”. He was committed for pre-sentencing psychiatric evaluation. The fact that the judged wanted more information including a psychiatric evaluation before sentencing Polanski just shows he was doing his job. Again, Polanski no doubt knew before entered his guilty plea that the judge was under no obligation to accept the recommended sentence. If I were the judge, I would not have accepted it either–the guy FORCIBLY RAPED A CHILD. Rather than face justice for his crime, Polanski fled. Now justice has hopefully caught up with him.
What we have to keep in mind here is that he fled to France, that’s the issue, not what he was arrested for.
Fleeing US jurisdiction, that is the only issue.
El Moi, Polanski is a fugitive. He is a fugitive from justice from the state of California. That is not the “only” issue. The state of California wants its’ “pound of flesh”. The legal system, like our society is sophisticated and because of that sophistication he was tracked and “seized” in Switzerland and will return. People are incensed because he “fled”, after he was found guilty and convicted for his crime. He was awaiting sentencing when he did his “Invisible Man” number. He is guilty of raping and sodomizing a minor he drugged with qualuudes and alcohol. People in France who adore Roman, are “deluded” in their hero worship. The first and most important issue is that he is a convicted felon, who has been “on the lam” for over three decades and thankfully he has been caught..
If he’d been arrested for jaywalking would anyone be so concerned?
If he’d been arrested for jaywalking and the judge planned to sentence him to years in jail and ‘voluntary deportation’ whose side would you be on?
The point is leaving the California jurisdiction, not anything else.
El Moi, think McFly! He wasn’t arrested for jaywalking! He was arrested for raping and sodomizing a minor! He is a convicted pedophile! Last time I checked jaywalking was a misdemeanor El Moi..
But that’s not why he was arrested in Switzerland.
Oh. ‘McFly’.
Right.
At least you give yourself the right character, Biff.
He was arrested because he is a fugitive. U.S. Marshalls have wanted to talk to Roman for a long time. He is a convicted felon in California and fled before sentencing. He is going to prison, Welcome to Machine..
Mike,
Of course there is an appeals process. An attorney can not advise a client to bolt. However, that issue is not really relevant.
Now the issue becomes, what should the sentence be and can folks look at the due process issues seriously?
You should try to find the HBO documentary. He got picked up on warrant. So? Not to minimize the underlying offense, however, the legal argument is missed because people act on emotion. It is what it is. The judge recused himself. Admitted to ex parte conversations with the prosecutor after the deal was done. A higher court already found this to be true. Now, if litigated properly, and if the judge is right… time served.
The real beef is with the prosecutor and judge who has since passed.
For law students who might be reading, it’s been a while. But, I wouldn’t want to grade any tests with an absolute abysmal failure to argue in the alternative rationally. F. I give most an F for failing to even recognize a valid contention. One must separate the flight. BFD. He should have gotten whacked to begin with. There is no separate crime charged for that (although contempt is possible). That’s a misdemeanor.
Get mad at the prosecutor. The judge. The crime. That’s fair game. The crime is despicable and indefensible. However, due process concerns exist as a matter of fact. Did everyone forget the A in IRAC. Christ.
The Media gets an “F” for failing to present the alternative argument. Few have. Toobin. A couple of lawyers. That’s it. Learn what happened. This is a legal blog. Try opening the brain. I’m not defending the crime. I’m defending the process. The law.
He should have stayed in the jurisdiction. I’ll grant that out. Great. Now, what is the proper sentence. If the judge is correct as to misconduct being “substantial?” Time served.
It ain’t like L.A. is known for their fine legal acumen. The defense lawyer, years ago, did a helluva job. Judge got soft b/c of the pressure. Polanski relied on the plea agreement to his detriment. Served time. Etc. Guess no one ever did a sex batt case before. They’re hard. Here, there is a pure, legal, defense. May not want to hear it. Sorry. Beat the argument.
If misconduct rose to a level that violates due process, court has an obligation to enforce the terms of the deal. Basically. The substantive nature of the crime, while reprehensible, has nothing to do with the legal issue the defense raises, a judge recognizes it as valid, and that’s it for purposes of a legal discussion. One could argue the terms of the plea are different. That a judge can interfere or not accept a deal… that ain’t what happened. You don’t throw out law b/c the defendant is a scumbag and famous.
Go read the Christian Burial Speech or something as an example.
RE: Fugitive. Hate to burst your bubble, but warrants are issued every day. Not a separate crime. Argue the merits. Go look up the definition of “Warrant.” Geeeeeeeeeeeeez.
Where is D.A. Vincent Bugliosi when we need him?
As I recall the judge was trying to impose a sentence that was excessively harsh compared to the standard of that era because Polanski wasn’t the kind of guy people like him liked.
There is something about Polanski that freaks out the Republican brain. After his wife was killed there were all kinds of newspapers stories trying to insinuate that he was responsible, or ‘what did she expect marry that guy?’ Then suddenly this great gift arrives and they fall all over themselves to screw him.
Sodomy and rape of a minor freak out any BRAIN! El Moi, are you aware of what this person did, or are you just playing?
Are you aware that’s not why they arrested him in Switzerland?
A charming quote, reportedly from a 1979 interview Polanski gave to novelist Martin Amis:
“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”
source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeldeacon/100011795/roman-polanski-everyone-else-fancies-little-girls-too/
Latest Report: The Swiss are transferring Polanski from jail to house arrest. I predict he will now flee to France where he cannot be extradited.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_en_ot/eu_switzerland_polanski
Hi everyone. When we got into office, the thing that surprised me the most was that things were as bad as we’d been saying they were. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Ebay mephisto. I found only this – mephisto vinson. Mephisto, mary jane’s trendy winters to peter, is one of the most pivotal actors in training flat fit impact. After this landscape pair saw the nature and disagreed the protagonist immediately, mephisto. Thank you very much
. Flora from Paraguay.