Judge Skeptical of Roman Polanski’s Latest Bid to End 40-Year-Old Rape Case

Roman Polanski extradition
Jarek Praszkiewicz/AP/REX/Shutterstock

An L.A. Superior Court judge heard extensive arguments Monday from an attorney for Roman Polanski, but seemed skeptical of the fugitive director’s latest bid to dispose of his 40-year-old rape case.

Polanski’s attorney, Harland Braun, argued that a December 2016 decision by the Polish Supreme Court not to extradite him should spur U.S. authorities to bring the case to a close.

“He’s an 83-year-old man with a 40-year-old case he wants to wrap up,” Braun argued to Judge Scott Gordon. Braun said that Polanski is “willing to come in” for a sentencing, but first wants assurances that he will not face additional time in custody.

After hearing about 45 minutes of argument, Gordon said he would consider the matter and issue a written ruling. However, the judge also noted that many of the issues have been litigated before.


Oscar Upsets

D.A. Opposes Roman Polanski’s Bid to Unseal Transcripts

Polanski pleaded guilty in 1977 to raping a 13-year-old girl, and was held for 42 days for a psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison. He fled to France before his sentencing.

Braun urged Gordon to honor the promise allegedly made by the original judge, Laurence Rittenband, not to sentence Polanski to additional time beyond the psychiatric evaluation. Gordon, however, noted that the 1977 plea agreement did not contain a promise of a particular sentence.

Gordon also repeatedly questioned Braun’s argument that the Polish Supreme Court’s decision should have a bearing on a California court.

Michele Hanisee, a deputy district attorney, argued that Gordon should not allow a “wealthy celebrity” to negotiate his sentence from afar.

“Mr. Polanski is asking this court to completely abandon all legal principles and give him special treatment,” Hanisee said.


Roman Polanski Pulls Out of Cesar Presidency Amid Protests

The L.A. County District Attorney’s office has repeatedly attempted to extradite Polanski without success. Polanski is a French-Polish citizen, and not subject to extradition in France. In 2009 and 2010, Polanski spent nearly a year in jail and under house arrest in Switzerland before that country also declined to extradite him.

Polanski’s attorneys have also spent years attempting to resolve the case without further punishment, which would allow the director to travel freely. His victim, Samantha Geimer, has also urged the L.A. court to dismiss the case.

Polanski’s attorneys have also argued that he was the victim of judicial misconduct. They contend that Rittenband reneged on his promise to sentence Polanski to no further time in custody, forcing Polanski to flee. A 2008 documentary, “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” added fuel to that claim, arguing that Rittenband reacted to public pressure for a stiffer sentence.

The district attorney’s office has maintained that Polanski must first submit to U.S. jurisdiction before the case can be resolved. In 2009, Judge Peter Espinoza agreed, finding that Polanski’s fugitive status barred him from seeking to dismiss the case.

“The defendant is not entitled to request any affirmative relief from this court, as he remains at large,” Espinoza ruled.

In a response to Braun’s motion, prosecutors accused him to rehashing old ground and seeking to “forum-shop” for a better outcome.

“The defendant has made these motions in the past,” Hanisee wrote. “He is bound by rulings made by at least three prior judges.”

Polanski directed such classics as “Rosemary’s Baby” and “Chinatown,” and won an Oscar for best director for “The Pianist.” His attorneys say that he has been forced to turn down work outside of France due to the outstanding warrant for his arrest.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 2

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. heyitsron says:

    “…….reacted to public pressure” That means “church” stirred up, call it a mass “stirring up” of their captive audience because it was all to do about “sexxxxxx.” So the comfortably numb started squawking non-stop. Because they were told to. Only in America. And any other nation dumb enough to try and copy us (not you, UK. no way…….). So he banged this partying chick who wanted to be banged, later paid her $250,000 to settle, and we still have remnants of the gestapo here trying to nail him to the cross? Isn’t it time we get some clear thinking on this? The first line of defense would have been circumstances affecting his life beyond his control. As in that Sharon thing. That pregnant Sharon thing. The incident that won’t go away, never goes away, when you love your wife like no other, both of you are extremely high-profile, and that happens. And the one who did it is still alive. And living on our tax dollar. THIS is where judicial concern should go. THIS is the issue. Not Roman. Not the supposed victim who says it’s over and let Roman return any time he wants and live in peace. YES! America is a great nation for second chances. So why is this crap still festering and popping up as if a plague that can’t be eradicated? Won’t go away? A proper judicial discretion would be–it’s over. Done with. YES! AGAIN!

    • fanya395 says:

      because he raped a 13 year old, and could give others license to do the same, and because when you do something outside of your home culture, and it is seen as a crime, you must realize that you don’t get to dictate the terms of your sentence

More Biz News from Variety