chris_sc77

Fair enough. In my mind. I would vote not guilty if I were on a Jury. That is my right.
You can Vote guilty . That is your right.
There are too many factors to consider in this case before I say not guilty.
I dont care of t technically is the same thing or not.
It grosses me out what Polanski did to a 13 year old girl but not nearly as much as what Micheal Jackson did to boys under the age of 10.
ANd Michael was let go and has a blockbuster movie coming out soon!

Deftones

yes, because when a normal average joe discusses this case and is outraged with the situation, dollar bills start to fly out of his wallet. come on.

Sweet Baby James

A word of advice, -notrolls-.

Deftones

i don't get why people continue to insist this. it's flat out wrong. sexual misconduct with a minor = statutory rape in California. while it may not have the same words, it's the same crime.

DeputyDave

I'd hate to see what you consider rape then if you think he should be found "not guilty". Would he have actually had to cut a new orifice (ala Dead Girl) in order for you to convict?

wlmowery

All the non-lawyers need to take a couple courses before they start spouting off on the status of the 1978 Polanski criminal case.

1. No trial was held.
2. No Plea Agreement was entered "of record" for adjudication purposes
3. Pending charges which are not contained in the plea agreement are not "dropped" until the plea agreement is finalized and entered "of record"
4. The case has never reached a state of final adjudication, therefore no jeopardy has attached.
5. Plea agreements are generally non-binding on the judge. He/She can reject at any time. The defendant generally reserves the right to change his/her plea if the plea agreement with the prosecutor is not upheld by the judge.
6. Any permission that Polanski received to leave the country pending final adjudication/entry of the agreement of record and sentencing does not relieve him of any charges of fleeing sentencing/fleeing the country. The specific permissions granted by the court terminated when he failed to show up at sentencing.

So here is where this stands from a legal perspective:

1. Polanski has entered a pleminary plea of guilty to one charge. The court then ordered custodial mental health evaluation. Polanski was released from custodial evaluation and granted contingent release pending final adjudication. Upon conclusion of the review process, Polanski was to report for final entry of plea and sentencing. This is when he fled based on his belief that the judge was not going to sentence him to time served.
2. The case can pick up where it left off, at the discretion of the court. In the alternative the court could now reject the prior plea and restart the criminal case for ALL charges, or Polanski could change his plea essentially accomplishing the same. In addition, seperate charges related to Polanski's flight can be brought at any time.

dhmac

Thanks, wlmowery! I've been wanting to specifically discuss the legal aspects of the case, but too many posts have nothing to do with that. But given the fact that the D.A. has not filed any other charges against Polanski (and he doesn't need to be in the U.S. for them to do that), doesn't that indicate that the plea agreement between prosecution and defense is still being honored?

wlmowery

Yes, as between the prosecution and the defense. But the judge is not a part of the prosecution team. Essentially, the case is suspended in limbo where it was at at the time of Polanski's flight. When he is brought back, it can pick up where it left off (at the entry of the plea and sentence per the judge's discretion), the judge can reject the plea agreement in its entirety, or Polanski can likely change his plea. If #1 happens, Polanski's plea to one charge will be entered of record, he will be sentenced and IF Polanski believes the sentence inappropriate, he can appeal that decision (including offering evidence that his plea was orignally made as a result of the court proffering a specific sentence). If #2 or #3 happens, then all original charges are back on the table.

The flight charges are essentially a seperate criminal case which may or may not be combined with the existing sex crimes case.

And for those that believe that judges have no right to change or reject a plea that the judge may have originally approved, it happens rather frequently. Here is a recent example: http://www.pe.com/localnews/sanberna....40e4a35.html#

dhmac

Also, wlmowery, what about the fact that both the prosecution and defense jointly filed a motion to have judge Rittenband removed from the case due to his misconduct. Does that successful motion have any bearing on the case as it stands now?

And does statue of limitations have any bearing at all if the plea agreement is dropped? (The statue of limitations is just 3 years for "unlawful sex with a minor").

eXcentris

Way to miss the point... And where was all this outrage in the past 30 years?
Why aren't people outraged at the justice system for fucking up? Or at law enforcement for doing practically nothing all this time? Again, I find all this outrage ridiculous and somewhat misplaced. And considering the most lilely outcome, it is a waste of time, money and resources.

Ok let's forget about semantics then. He pleaded guilty to a LESSER charge.

wlmowery

So, if any one cares, here is what I think happens if Polanski is brought back to face the charges:

1. The 1978 Sex Crimes charges will be continued, the new judge will accept the previously negotiated plea agreement of time served.
2. Flight charges will be brought. A plea will be reached with a 1-3 year prison sentence, which will be reduced via parol to about 4-6 months (low end)/1 year (high end) of actual prison time with probation for a 1-2 year term.

So, if any one cares, here is what I think SHOULD happen if Polanski is brought back to face the charges:

1. Court either rejects initial plea (since it was too much of a special deal). Charge him with the full counts. Or, court accepts plea but rejects the negotiated time served sentence and enters a sentence of 1-3 years for the statutory rape charge (within the sentencing guidelines for the crime). Charge him with flight, sentence of 1-2 years consecutive with the sex crimes sentence. Total time served should be 18months -3 years with parol and probation.

For those wondering about statutes of limitations on the crimes (either sex crimes or flight charges), the statutes are tolled (stopped) for criminals who are fleeing prosecution.

wlmowery

I don't believe that the joint motion was ever finally considered and ruled on by a competent court, because Mr. Polanski had fled. That said, the motion is now moot as the judge is dead. A new judge would be assigned. The joint motion has no practical impact on the final adjudication, though it could prove to provide fertile grounds for appeal of the case by the Polanski team (ie. claiming even the prosecution thought the court was acting inappropriately).

As for the statute of limitations, all statutes are tolled when the defendant is in active flight from prosecution (which I believe Mr. Polanski's situation constitutes under Cal. law). However, I am not a Cal. lawyer so there may be case law I am unaware of that says otherwise (and in Cal. that is ALWAYS a possibility - one reason I promised never to practice in that state....).

wlmowery

And for those wondering, Cal. law is a real mess in my opinion. Here's my very limited experience....:

In law school, we had an assignment for one of our classes to write a legal brief on a particular topic (we all had the same topic) from various jurisdictions (we were each assigned different jurisdictions). I forget the topic, I forget the class in which the assignment was issued (it's been awhile...), but I REMEMBER that I ended up with California. While friends of mine had Iowa (about 3 cases on point, about 2 doz. tangential cases) or Oregon (about 5 cases on point, about 2 doz. tangential cases), I remember vividly that Cal. had over 700 cases ON POINT (many of which had conflicting elements) and more than 3000 tangentially related cases.... I've hated Cal. law since that time....

I also refuse to practice in LA (Napoleonic law not anglo-centric). I'm also not a big fan of Mass. or Texas for reasons similar to Cal.

dhmac

BTW, the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted & Desired, which I think is essential viewing for this case, has a website and, on that, there's a page talking about the case:

The case of the People vs. Roman Polanski

Given how fair the documentary is (even with the lying D.A. in it) in presenting things, this write-up is well-worth reading.

wlmowery

Personally, having just read that linked material, I find nothing compelling in what is written. In fact, there are clear signs of biases leaking through that writing. That said, I think this is a very emotionally charged issue and biases will leak through regardless.

eXcentris

"How Polanski's Probation Officer Saw his Crime"

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-his-crime/?hp

This is gonna make people cringe.

dhmac

BTW, what's the legal difference between dropping charges "with prejudice" and dropping charges "without prejudice"?

dhmac

The only thing I can find on that motion online is this 2006 article:
Although that article leaves out the fact that the affidavit was jointly submitted by the defense and the prosecution.

DeputyDave

There is absolutely nothing about that article that makes me want to change my mind. Rape is rape and if he were not Roman Polanski he would have done prison time. The "possible permissiveness" by the mother means nothing. The fact that she was sexually experienced has zero to do with it. No means no and she was underage. End of story.

I find the part about his childhood and previous experiences to be particularly insulting. A person's history should not factor at all in deciding guilt. After what I’ve been through in my life I should have lampshades made out of human skin and be prancing about in a vest of sown vaginas, and I have never raped, killed, or hurt anyone. Fuck him; he is a cowardly little bitch who needs to face up to his mistakes. That interview he did a while back where he tried to justify his crime made me want to put my fist through the screen.

And to those who wonder why people are just now getting mad, well, duh, it's in the news and probably most people were unaware of it. I, for one, was always aware of it and would always bring it up whenever Polanski was discussed. You will not find a single Polanski thread on this forum that I participated in where I did not talk about the rape.

Deftones

you seem to be completely missing the point because you keep spouting off the same bullshit post after post.
who cares where the outrage has been for the past 30 years? Polanski isn't tried in a court of public opinion. it's tried in the court of law. you also seem to think law enforcement was doing nothing. could that be because maybe they knew as long as he was in france they couldn't do shit about it? amazing how that works.

i'd also be willing to bet many people are just learning about this story now. joe sixpack doesn't follow celebs like many of us here do and i'd be willing to bet the coverage of this 30 years ago pales in comparison of the shit we get now with Brangelina and other celebs.

dhmac

That mentions Anjelica Huston, who apparently arrived home (she lived in Jack Nicholson's house at the time) at the time the rape was occurring and even interrupted it when she knocked on the bedroom door (although she was apparently unaware at the time of what was happening inside). And she even saw the victim immediately after the rape occurred while still in the house (hence the "did not look like a 13-year-old little scared thing" comment). Did she ever give any testimony to the grand jury or anyone else?

DeputyDave

Who cares how old she looked? She could have looked like a 93 year old hag and it wouldn't matter. She was 13 chronologically and Polanski knew her real age.

Again, who cares how scared she looked (she was drunk and drugged, remember). She could willingly be doing a 10 man gang bang and when guy number 11 steps up and she says "no"... after that if it continues it is rape.

Why does it seem like it's mostly liberals arguing for Polanski? Don't you guys get all worked up over woman's lib, and woman's choice, and "it's my own body"? I'd love to get into this argument with a real woman's lib-er, having her justify how when a woman says "no" it sometimes means yes.

dhmac

For you, I'm going to follow this advice: -notrolls-
.

DeputyDave

Advice I should have been following in this thread.

BJacks

This case is a twisting, conflicting confluence of liberal agendas that must make lefties heads explode. On one hand, you have the ultimate feminist ideal, that a woman's body is her own and she should never be forcibly subservient to a man. But on the other hand, the aggressor is a brilliant European auteur and the incident occurred in the swinging, liberal, anything goes 70s. What to do??

It's sad that it seems to be mostly right-wing floating heads that are coming out swinging on this. You'd think child rape is one issue that'd really cross the aisle.