Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland at U.S. request

[shira]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: JS80
lol why am i not surprised the leftys here are defending this guy

I am a lefty but i think he should be brought to justice.

I'm a lefty, and I think the rule of law should be followed.

Just as the exclusionary rule can force a judge to dismiss charges against an obviously guilty suspect, so the actions of the original trial judge have - I believe - created a situation where Polanski's full due-process rights have been irretrievably compromised. If that's correct (and I obviously could be wrong about this), the rule of law says the charges should be dismissed.

How exactly have Polanski's due process rights been irretrievably compromised? What case law is being cited for this proposition?

He pled guilty as part of a plea bargain. The judge decided not to honor the agreement. How, at this point, could Polanksi receive a fair trial? What jury would not be prejudiced by the past guilty plea?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: JS80
lol why am i not surprised the leftys here are defending this guy

I am a lefty but i think he should be brought to justice.

I'm a lefty, and I think the rule of law should be followed.

Just as the exclusionary rule can force a judge to dismiss charges against an obviously guilty suspect, so the actions of the original trial judge have - I believe - created a situation where Polanski's full due-process rights have been irretrievably compromised. If that's correct (and I obviously could be wrong about this), the rule of law says the charges should be dismissed.

How exactly have Polanski's due process rights been irretrievably compromised? What case law is being cited for this proposition?

He pled guilty as part of a plea bargain. The judge decided not to honor the agreement. How, at this point, could Polanksi receive a fair trial? What jury would not be prejudiced by the past guilty plea?

Are you joking? That's your constitutional argument in regards to due process?

Unfortunately for you and Polanski, that argument does not work as a successful constitutional challenge.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: jonks

Interesting:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA...TS/0302/24/lkl.00.html

Great find, Jonks. But in reading the transcript, there's this very interesting section where Larry King is interviewing the attorney who represented Geimer:

KING: We're now joined by Lawrence Silver, the attorney for Samantha Geimer.

Explain this to me, Larry, you were her attorney then.

LAWRENCE SILVER, SAMANTHA GEIMER'S ATTORNEY: I was.

KING: Were you part of the plea bargaining?

SILVER: Larry, today you see Samantha and she's fine, robust, healthy woman. But at age 13, and this was before O.J., there was just the intense publicity. This was -- this courthouse, with cross examination about these sort of delicate events was not the place for a recovering young girl.

KING: So, she never appeared in court?

SILVER: No. Well before the grand jury but never in court. And, you know, the Santa Monica courthouse has five entrances and most news channel had one camera crew at each entrance to try to get a picture.

KING: It would have been a circus?

SILVER: It was a circus. It was a circus.

My job, I thought, was to try to keep her out of the courtroom, try to keep her to getting back to her life.

KING: You did that?

SILVER: And -- yes, I think we did.

KING: Were you shocked what the judge did?

What did the judge do, tell us?

SILVER: Well, what the judge did was frankly outrageous. We had agreed to a plea bargain. It wasn't what the prosecution wanted, it certainly wasn't what Polanski wanted, but it was what we wanted. We were the victim and this is the way in which Samantha would not be in trial. Samantha would be -- her name would not be exposed at the time. And she would be allowed to recover.

And the plea was proposed to the judge, the judge approved it. And then frankly the day before he called us in the chambers and said he was getting a great deal of pressure and a great deal -- he was concerned about criticism of him in the press. And he was going to sentence Polanski rather than to time served, which is what we agreed to, to 50 years. That's a long -- big difference. And...

KING: Told you that.

SILVER: Yes, told us that. And he Told us other things. He directed Mr. Dalton, Polanski's lawyer, to say certain things during court. He directed the prosecutor, Mr. Guncin (ph), to say certain things the next day. Directed me to do things. This is unheard of.

KING: Inviting him to flee?

SILVER: I don't know about that.

KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 50 years.

SILVER: Well, I don't know about inviting him to flee. But he also said that he might consider reducing it if Polanski would self-deport himself. This a state court judge, he has no jurisdiction over immigration, naturalization matters. So this change of position by the judge excused Polanski. And there was an agreement. An agreement that was a good agreement. It addressed all of the interests of the parties and frankly I still think it ought to be enforced.

I think this pretty well speaks for itself.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: JS80
lol why am i not surprised the leftys here are defending this guy

I am a lefty but i think he should be brought to justice.

I'm a lefty, and I think the rule of law should be followed.

Just as the exclusionary rule can force a judge to dismiss charges against an obviously guilty suspect, so the actions of the original trial judge have - I believe - created a situation where Polanski's full due-process rights have been irretrievably compromised. If that's correct (and I obviously could be wrong about this), the rule of law says the charges should be dismissed.

How exactly have Polanski's due process rights been irretrievably compromised? What case law is being cited for this proposition?

He pled guilty as part of a plea bargain. The judge decided not to honor the agreement. How, at this point, could Polanksi receive a fair trial? What jury would not be prejudiced by the past guilty plea?

Are you joking? That's your constitutional argument in regards to due process?

Unfortunately for you and Polanski, that argument does not work as a successful constitutional challenge.

This isn't a "constitutional challenge." Where on earth did I use that term? It's a reason a judge would dismiss the case against Polanski.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Due process rights are a constitutional right and your 'argument' is such a ridiculous proposition that it would likely be laughed out of court.

 

[nageov3t]

if you don't like the outcome of a trial, you appeal... you don't leave the country and spend 30 years evading the law.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: wetech

But the original judge in the case, who is now dead, first sent the director to maximum-security prison for 42 days while he underwent psychological testing. Then, on the eve of his sentencing, the judge told attorneys he was inclined to send Polanski back to prison for another 48 days.

If you could quote the the attorneys saying that was all the judge was looking to do, I would believe you. However, having seen the attorneys on both sides of the case saying the judge was obvious going for far more than 48 days, I'm sure you can't.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: loki8481
if you don't like the outcome of a trial, you appeal... you don't leave the country and spend 30 years evading the law.

Stop being reasonable.

However, we have a lot of people here who are ignorant of the law and the legal process. They don't understand what is happening. They like to be ignorant.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: loki8481
if you don't like the outcome of a trial, you appeal... you don't leave the country and spend 30 years evading the law.

You might characterize the situation like that, if you are flagrantly ignorant to the details of it.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: loki8481

if you don't like the outcome of a trial, you appeal... you don't leave the country and spend 30 years evading the law.

There was no trial. He pled guilty to having unlawful sex with a thirteen year old girl. Then, he split after a psych evaluation, but before sentencing.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481

if you don't like the outcome of a trial, you appeal... you don't leave the country and spend 30 years evading the law.

There was no trial. He pled guilty to having unlawful sex with a thirteen year old girl. Then, he split after a psych evaluation, but before sentencing.

I see that Woody Allen is lobbying for Polanski's release. It's nice to see two of the world's most famous pedophiles sticking together :roll:

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481

if you don't like the outcome of a trial, you appeal... you don't leave the country and spend 30 years evading the law.

There was no trial. He pled guilty to having unlawful sex with a thirteen year old girl. Then, he split after a psych evaluation, but before sentencing.

OK, if you don't like where you think sentencing is going...you don't leave the country and spend 30 years evading the law.

Plea bargains have been and always will be subject to the whims of the judge. Don't like it, go to trial.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: JS80
lol why am i not surprised the leftys here are defending this guy

I am a lefty but i think he should be brought to justice.

I'm a lefty, and I think the rule of law should be followed.

Just as the exclusionary rule can force a judge to dismiss charges against an obviously guilty suspect, so the actions of the original trial judge have - I believe - created a situation where Polanski's full due-process rights have been irretrievably compromised. If that's correct (and I obviously could be wrong about this), the rule of law says the charges should be dismissed.

How exactly have Polanski's due process rights been irretrievably compromised? What case law is being cited for this proposition?

He pled guilty as part of a plea bargain. The judge decided not to honor the agreement. How, at this point, could Polanksi receive a fair trial? What jury would not be prejudiced by the past guilty plea?

That has nothing to do with due process. A judge can throw out a plea agreement at any time. And a defendant can appeal the conviction/sentencing. That's how it works. That's no violation of due process.

 

[Pliablemoose]

LEAVE POOR ROMAN ALONE......

LOL, I love how his defenders are so sure he was railroaded, denied due process, not guilty, never tried, how the girl was a tramp.

Come on you Humbert Humbert wanna be's, just fess up, you think it's OK to screw a 13 year old, and not just screw her, but give her the fucking of her life, go down on her, have her go down on you, & do anal. Just because the US is so damn uptight and more sophisticated countries like Nigeria & Burkina Faso allow sex with 13 year olds. We all know A normal man, given a group photograph of school girls and asked to point out the loveliest one, will not necessarily choose the nymphet among them.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: loki8481
if you don't like the outcome of a trial, you appeal... you don't leave the country and spend 30 years evading the law.

There was no trial. There was a plea agreement. It happens all the time. The prosecution, defense, and the judge agreed on a plea and a sentence.

Except that AFTER the guilty plea, the judge decided he wasn't going to abide by the agreement.

If the legal system claims that the amended sentence stands, then ALL plea-bargains are history. Why on earth would any defendant agree to a guilty plea when the judge can do the old switcheroo?

Frankly, it's impossible to conceive that the guilty plea would be allowed to stand. And if the guilty plea is retracted, Polanski is presumed INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. From a legal standpoint, none of us on this thread "knows" jack-sh!t about what Polanaski did or did not do. We don't even "know" the grand jury testimony (which is NEVER revealed to a jury) and one-sided, anecdotal stories.

Do you really think that ANY of this would have happened if an all-star legal team had defended Polanski back in 1978 and contested the charge? What do you think the odds would have been of conviction if Polanski's team had used every legal trick in the book to invalidate the prosecution's case? My guess is pretty slim. Think OJ Simpson.

But, gee, the little girl's family wanted to spare her the ordeal. Polanski grudgingly went along. And now everyone wants to fvck him over because an incompetent judge wanted to make a name for himself.

I'm simply astounded at the "hang 'em high" mentality shown on this thread. Do you have any conception at all about what due process means?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: JS80
lol why am i not surprised the leftys here are defending this guy

I am a lefty but i think he should be brought to justice.

I'm a lefty, and I think the rule of law should be followed.

Just as the exclusionary rule can force a judge to dismiss charges against an obviously guilty suspect, so the actions of the original trial judge have - I believe - created a situation where Polanski's full due-process rights have been irretrievably compromised. If that's correct (and I obviously could be wrong about this), the rule of law says the charges should be dismissed.

How exactly have Polanski's due process rights been irretrievably compromised? What case law is being cited for this proposition?

He pled guilty as part of a plea bargain. The judge decided not to honor the agreement. How, at this point, could Polanksi receive a fair trial? What jury would not be prejudiced by the past guilty plea?

That has nothing to do with due process. A judge can throw out a plea agreement at any time. And a defendant can appeal the conviction/sentencing. That's how it works. That's no violation of due process.

Are you daft or just really, really stupid?

The judge didn't throw out the agreement. He accepted the agreement and Polanski plead guilty. THEN the judge decided to change his agreed-to sentence. And he didn't offer to allow Polanski to retract his plea.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: JS80
lol why am i not surprised the leftys here are defending this guy

I am a lefty but i think he should be brought to justice.

I'm a lefty, and I think the rule of law should be followed.

Just as the exclusionary rule can force a judge to dismiss charges against an obviously guilty suspect, so the actions of the original trial judge have - I believe - created a situation where Polanski's full due-process rights have been irretrievably compromised. If that's correct (and I obviously could be wrong about this), the rule of law says the charges should be dismissed.

How exactly have Polanski's due process rights been irretrievably compromised? What case law is being cited for this proposition?

He pled guilty as part of a plea bargain. The judge decided not to honor the agreement. How, at this point, could Polanksi receive a fair trial? What jury would not be prejudiced by the past guilty plea?

That has nothing to do with due process. A judge can throw out a plea agreement at any time. And a defendant can appeal the conviction/sentencing. That's how it works. That's no violation of due process.

Are you daft or just really, really stupid?

The judge didn't throw out the agreement. He accepted the agreement and Polanski plead guilty. THEN the judge decided to change his agreed-to sentence. And he didn't offer to allow Polanski to retract his plea.

And how is that violating due process? That's a judge's discretion. That's what the appeal process is for. A plea bargain is an agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant. A judge, at no point, has to agree to it. Period*


*at least that's my understanding of the legal system, IANAL but have consulted one of our forum members as now I'm curious
Google example
google example

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481

if you don't like the outcome of a trial, you appeal... you don't leave the country and spend 30 years evading the law.

There was no trial. He pled guilty to having unlawful sex with a thirteen year old girl. Then, he split after a psych evaluation, but before sentencing.

Which included 42 days he was in a maxiumum security prison, it should be noted.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: loki8481
if you don't like the outcome of a trial, you appeal... you don't leave the country and spend 30 years evading the law.

There was no trial. There was a plea agreement. It happens all the time. The prosecution, defense, and the judge agreed on a plea and a sentence.

Except that AFTER the guilty plea, the judge decided he wasn't going to abide by the agreement.

If the legal system claims that the amended sentence stands, then ALL plea-bargains are history. Why on earth would any defendant agree to a guilty plea when the judge can do the old switcheroo?

Frankly, it's impossible to conceive that the guilty plea would be allowed to stand. And if the guilty plea is retracted, Polanski is presumed INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. From a legal standpoint, none of us on this thread "knows" jack-sh!t about what Polanaski did or did not do. We don't even "know" the grand jury testimony (which is NEVER revealed to a jury) and one-sided, anecdotal stories.

Do you really think that ANY of this would have happened if an all-star legal team had defended Polanski back in 1978 and contested the charge? What do you think the odds would have been of conviction if Polanski's team had used every legal trick in the book to invalidate the prosecution's case? My guess is pretty slim. Think OJ Simpson.

But, gee, the little girl's family wanted to spare her the ordeal. Polanski grudgingly went along. And now everyone wants to fvck him over because an incompetent judge wanted to make a name for himself.

I'm simply astounded at the "hang 'em high" mentality shown on this thread. Do you have any conception at all about what due process means?

We actually almost know for sure that he's guilty of his skipping out and taking flight.

What exactly do you think that Due Process means? How is it related to this particular issue? What kind of Due Process right are you referring to?

I feel that you're just talking about Due Process, but you don't understand it in a constitutional context.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
LEAVE POOR ROMAN ALONE......

LOL, I love how his defenders are so sure he was railroaded, denied due process, not guilty, never tried, how the girl was a tramp.

Come on you Humbert Humbert wanna be's, just fess up, you think it's OK to screw a 13 year old, and not just screw her, but give her the fucking of her life, go down on her, have her go down on you, & do anal. Just because the US is so damn uptight and more sophisticated countries like Nigeria & Burkina Faso allow sex with 13 year olds. We all know A normal man, given a group photograph of school girls and asked to point out the loveliest one, will not necessarily choose the nymphet among them.

and thats a diffrent thread. not that i disagree with you actually.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481

if you don't like the outcome of a trial, you appeal... you don't leave the country and spend 30 years evading the law.

There was no trial. He pled guilty to having unlawful sex with a thirteen year old girl. Then, he split after a psych evaluation, but before sentencing.

Which included 42 days he was in a maxiumum security prison, it should be noted.

Exend that to 42 years, and he'll have gotten what he deserves.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Roman Polanski attorneys may have provoked arrest by complaining L.A. wasn't serious about arresting director

Oh Snap... They complained 2x's that LA DA wasn't serious about the charges or extraditing him....

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: shira
Are you daft or just really, really stupid?

The judge didn't throw out the agreement. He accepted the agreement and Polanski plead guilty. THEN the judge decided to change his agreed-to sentence. And he didn't offer to allow Polanski to retract his plea.

And how is that violating due process? That's a judge's discretion. That's what the appeal process is for. A plea bargain is an agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant. A judge, at no point, has to agree to it. Period*


*at least that's my understanding of the legal system, IANAL but have consulted one of our forum members as now I'm curious
Google example
google example

Read the transcript of victim's lawyer's account of what happened (see my post at 8:48PM). To repeat the critical parts:

And the plea was proposed to the judge, the judge approved it. And then frankly the day before he called us in the chambers and said he was getting a great deal of pressure and a great deal -- he was concerned about criticism of him in the press. And he was going to sentence Polanski rather than to time served, which is what we agreed to, to 50 years

 

[JeepinEd]

For all you loons trying to protect this pedophile, here is the actual court transcript of Samantha Geimer's grand jury testimony.
Note that none of the defense attorneys disputed any of her statements.

Text

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: shira
There was no trial. There was a plea agreement. It happens all the time. The prosecution, defense, and the judge agreed on a plea and a sentence.

Except that AFTER the guilty plea, the judge decided he wasn't going to abide by the agreement.

If the legal system claims that the amended sentence stands, then ALL plea-bargains are history. Why on earth would any defendant agree to a guilty plea when the judge can do the old switcheroo?

Frankly, it's impossible to conceive that the guilty plea would be allowed to stand. And if the guilty plea is retracted, Polanski is presumed INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. From a legal standpoint, none of us on this thread "knows" jack-sh!t about what Polanaski did or did not do. We don't even "know" the grand jury testimony (which is NEVER revealed to a jury) and one-sided, anecdotal stories.

Due process is one thing, but it looks as if you're disputing the facts. At the very least, he had sex with her. That's statutory rape, at the minimum. And if you accept her allegations, which she has maintained for decades, he gave her alcohol and drugs, she resisted his advances, and he had 3rd input sex with her. He then fled the country when the sweet deal didn't go his way instead of withdrawing his guilty plea after the judge rejected it, and going to trial.

Saying we know jack shit about what happened is not true, we know a helluva lot about what happened. Her grand jury testimony (which actually is available) was under oath and wouldn't be any more or less true if she uttered it during the trial.

Polanski "grudgingly went along"(!) with a deal that would have avoided jailtime for statutory rape or worse? He leapt at that shit like a lifeline.

Presumption of innocence is merely a legal construct describing the burden of proof in court. It has absolutely no bearing on public discourse regarding the facts as we understand them. Again, at the very least, a 43 year old had sex with a 13 year old girl, and if you accept the particulars, with the aid of drugs and against her will. He deserves due process, he does not deserve our sympathy.

ED: after a little more reading, whether he could withdraw his plea depended upon the deal as structured. However, as he plead to a misdemeanor, a sentence imposed could likely not exceed one year (general rule), so would be subject to review if not outright rejected.