Tag: Roman Polanski (page 2)

Roman Polanski has been awarded the Silver Bear for best director at the Berlin Film Festival for his new political thriller, The Ghost Writer. It's a political thriller, starring Pierce Brosnan as a prime minister accused of war crimes. It's based on the 2007 Robert Harris book “The Ghost.”

Still under house arrest in Switzerland, Polanski was unable to accept the award in person.

Now that the Judge has refused Roman Polanski's request to be sentenced in absentia, the Swiss will act on the extradition request. Can they refuse it? Do they have to refuse it as being legally insufficient? What is Polanski's best argument?

Roman Polanski's lawyers say LA prosecutors misled the Swiss in making the request for Roman's extradition by omitting to inform them that Polanski was not facing a sentence of a year or more upon his return.

Lawyers for Mr. Polanski have argued that the judge who originally handled the case, Laurence J. Rittenband, who has since died, never intended to jail him for more than 90 days. They contend that a sentence that short would not qualify Mr. Polanski, who has been held in Switzerland since September, for extradition to the United States under a treaty between the two countries.

...Action by the Swiss is anticipated within weeks, although Mr. Polanski’s lawyers have said in court that officials in Switzerland had been waiting for more clarity about Mr. Polanski’s possible sentence.

[More...]

Update: Via Variety, Polanski's lawyer says he will appeal denial to state appeals court. Background on statute at issue for today's hearing is here.

Update: Via Twitter, Judge denies Polanski's request. So he goes back to the appeals court now which suggested it in the first place? First to report it on Twitter: Royal Oakes. Second: Steve Futterman of CBS News. (I was third, but I waited for confirmation.) Now there are a ton of tweets, but none with details yet as to reasons. The web will be best for those.

The hearing in LA on Roman Polanski's request to be sentenced in absentia is underway. Via Twitter, 10 minutes ago from CBS reporter Steve Fetterman: "It appears from comments in court that judge is denying polanski request to be sentenced in absentia." No further details yet.

Lawyers for the victim in Roman Polanski's 1977 case released a pleading it will file tomorrow in support of Polanski's request to be sentenced in absentia and to be sentenced to time served.

The victim's lawyer, Lawrence Silver, in joining Polanski's request, includes this new information:

In a new revelation, Silver wrote in his legal filing that he witnessed [Judge]Rittenband say in his chambers that no other incarceration would be imposed, only to then renege on his promise and threaten to send Polanski to an indeterminate prison sentence. Polanski fled the country soon after.

Polanski's lawyers have also filed a brief saying the prosecutors misled the Swiss in seeking his extradition warrant.

The hearing will be held Friday. Background is here.

In affirming the denial of Roman Polanski's motion to dismiss the criminal charges against him last month, the California Appeals Court noted that Section 1173 of the California Penal Code allows for felony sentencing in absentia. The pertinent part of the statute reads (via Lexis.com):

If the conviction is for a felony, the defendant shall be personally present when judgment is pronounced against him or her, unless the defendant, in open court and on the record, or in a notarized writing, requests that judgment be pronounced against him or her in his or her absence, and that he or she be represented by an attorney when judgment is pronounced, and the court approves his or her absence during the pronouncement of judgment...

The Court said "Based on the oral arguments of counsel, this court would not expect any objection to be made if Polanski should request to be sentenced in absentia."

Polanski then moved to be sentenced in absentia. Today, the L.A. prosecutor objected. A hearing is set for next week. I haven't found a copy of the prosecutor's response, but I also haven't seen any California cases that uphold the denial of a defendant's request because of an objection from the prosecutor. While the decision is up to the judge, I think the prosecutor is on shaky ground. Here's why: [More...]

Taking the California Court of Appeals suggestion, Director Roman Polanski has filed a formal request with the court in Los Angeles to be sentenced in absentia on his 1977 guilty plea to to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. The Court of Appeals decision (distilled here) said:

Without returning to the United States or dropping his battle against extradition, Polanski may, through counsel, request that the trial court
conduct the never-yet-held sentencing hearing in absentia pursuant to section 1193. If the trial court approves this request, then Polanski, through his counsel, will be able to obtain the evidentiary hearing that is so urgently required to establish the facts of what occurred in 1977 and 1978. The trial judge now presiding over the matter, Judge Espinoza, has already indicated
that at a sentencing hearing Polanski would be able to fully litigate the allegations of misconduct and a prior pledge by Judge Rittenband as to Polanski’s punishment.

Smart move, in my view. [More...]

An appeals court in California today heard oral arguments in Roman Polanski's case. At issue was Polanski's request to dismiss the charges due to judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. A trial judge last year refused to hear the case because he was a fugitive. The grounds for the dismissal request were the new revelations in the film, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired".

Associate Justice Laurie Zelon asked the prosecutor why the district attorney's office had not investigated recent allegations of misconduct by a judge and prosecutor during Polanski's 1977 court proceedings.

"Doesn't the district attorney's office have an interest in finding out what happened here?" Zelon asked.

Deputy District Attorney Phyllis Asayama replied, "Yes, we are interested. But I'm not sure we have the proper agency to do this." She didn't elaborate.

[More...]

Preparations are underway for Roman Polanski to be released from jail on bail and home detention at his chalet in Switzerland. The Swiss Justice Ministry announced today they will not appeal the decision.

Polanski will be released from custody as soon as bail has been transferred, ID and travel documents have been lodged, and the electronic monitoring system has been installed and tested.

He served 60 days in jail following his extradition arrest, and the appeals court in LA still has his motion to dismiss under consideration. The victim has asked the appeals court to dismiss the case.

Oral argument in the California appeal is set for December 10.

Director Roman Polanski has been granted bail in Switzerland.

German radio reported this morning (hat tip to reader Scribe for the translation:)

The film director Roman Polanski, incarcerated because of sexual misconduct, will be released from jail on bail. The Swiss federal court in Lausanne imposed a bail of about 3 million Euros. Polanski must turn over all passports and will be placed under house arrest. Additionally, the court may require him to wear an electronic ankle bracelet. The Swiss police had arrested the director at the end of September on an arrest warrant out of the USA. Polanski is alleged to have abused a 13 y/o girl in 1977 after giving her alcohol and drugs.

Polanski will remain in jail while the Swiss Justice Ministry decides whether to appeal. They have 10 days to make the decision.

The appeal of the decision refusing to hear Roman Polanski's motion to dismiss the 1977 criminal charges and case has been set for Dec. 10 by a California appeals court. The motion was based on the revelations of the documentary, Wanted and Desired, which included interviews with a former prosecutor and the judge, which Polanski argued demonstrate proseuctiorial and judicial misconduct.

Earlier this year, the trial court refused to hear the motion because Polanski was not present in court. The appeal is asking the trial court be required to rule on the motion despite Polanski's non-appearance.

In related news, Polanski's lawyers in Switzerland have upped their bail offer to include a large cash deposit. Will that do the trick?

Switzerland announced last night on its website that it has received formal extradition papers from the U.S., seeking the return of Director Roman Polanski.

The US extradition request is based on a warrant issued by the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on 1 February 1978, on which date Polanski had failed to appear before the judge as was required by his bail conditions. During the US criminal investigation, Polanski had admitted to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. He is wanted by the US authorities with a view to passing sentence for this offence.

There will be a hearing at which Polanski's lawyers can submit argument. [More...]

So it was the Swiss authorities after all who alerted the U.S. that Roman Polanski would be in Switzerland to accept the film award. The Associated Press obtained the fax and emails between the Swiss Federal Office of Justice sand the U.S. Office of International Affairs, which is part of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Swiss officials wanted to know if the U.S. would be submitting a request for Polanski's arrest....After receiving the tip, federal officials alerted the Los Angeles district attorney's office, which immediately began drafting an arrest warrant.

I've read in a few places that the Swiss Government was involved in the Film Festival which extended the award invitation to Polanski. For example, the Swiss Ministry sponsored an "Industry Day" for the festival.

The Zurich Film Festival's first Industry Day will take place at the Seefeld Razzia on Tuesday, September 29. Sponsored by the Swiss Federal Office of Culture and Swiss Films, this event is aimed at all professionals involved in the filmmaking industry including producers, directors, authors and actors.

If so, I've been wondering if the Swiss action could be considered a "lure" which would violate DOJ policy, according to the U.S. Attorney's Manual.[More...]