Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
I'm offering a bet that fits my view of the facts and likely outcome of the case, your "facts" would indicate an entirely different outcome.
Put your money where your mouth is.
I'm offering a bet that fits my view of the facts and likely outcome of the case, your "facts" would indicate an entirely different outcome.
Put your money where your mouth is.
Out of curiosity couldn't a person make a reasonable argument but fail to convince for reasons other than the reasonable part which would still make the argument reasonable.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
He might indeed split to another place to avoid extradition but IF anyone has been allowed bail pending an extradition in Switzerland I'd say he'd be in the top 30%. Mainly because of the French and Polish political folks who want him freed. The criteria for bail in Switzerland is becoming a better known issue. I'd think his chances are slim now. But I still think he can make a reasonable argument with which you may not think it is reasonable, but I do.
A plea agreement, at least in my neck of the woods, is between the People, Judge and Defense with weight given to various considerations. In this case, the prosecution was reluctant but gave into the desires of the victim, as I read the commentary. I agree and so stated that the judge usually signs the order after he reads the sentence in open court. However, in response to your statement, I submit that the judge accepted the deal as presented and was not going to allow Polanski to withdraw his plea.
Yes, upon motion or the courts own motion a judge can give a directed verdict to the jury of Not Guilty but can not give a directed Guilty . He has wide discretion but usually once submitted to the finder of fact he is bound by it. He cannot turn a not guilty verdict into a guilty one etc.. That would invoke the jeopardy clause, I'd think. I do suppose he can dismiss a count that was submitted. I'm fairly sure he can't add a charge and then find the defendent guilty of it or direct a jury to. The jury is bound by what charges they can select from and if a lesser included charge is available and guilt is determined on that lesser charge the judge can't up it to the more severe.
I get the feeling you think I'm sympathetic that Polanski should have 'walked' on the six counts he did actually commit. The fact is that I am not! I think the judge should have rejected any plea that provided less than a long jail term.. maybe twenty to life... note, I would have him subject to parole and control for quite some time after his manditory portion. He used his celebrated status to use that girl but no matter who he is or was I personally think 45 days is a mockery!
Although a Plea agreement may not be a legally binding contract to induce a plea, in a case it is the sort of deal - in my thinking - where if the judge wishes to reject the terms then all go back to square one. I've no problem with doing that or if that is what would have occurred. It seems wrong and immoral to get an accused to plead guilty and then violate the basis under which that was derived.. It don't set well with me...
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Polanski has a track record of making reasonable argument. It seems he was allowed on bail and could go anywhere in the world to do his movie stuff. How many folks with six felony charges facing them could get bail and of them how many could leave the county let alone the country? All this BEFORE the crazy doctors pronounced him normal... hehehehe Normal... that sorta rings loud... HOW could someone who did what he did be called normal?... But, to your point: He can make reasonable argument but Athena rejects, apparently, all elements that he might include that I find persuasive to allow me to opine he could make a reasonable argument. Athena feels that I'd be of a changed mind, apparently, if I was aware of more facts than I am, however, the ones I'm looking at even if there are a ton I'm unaware of provide the basis of my statement. It may not convince a soul but that don't make his argument incapable of being reasonable...
Some found "IF the glove don't fit, you must acquit" to be reasonable although that was not really a reasonable demand... imo.. hehehehehe
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I figure this is far more likely the reason for your position here rather than that of professional psychologists. Besides, while he was fairly famous at the time, he wasn't rightly rich. The judge even respected this enough to allow him to go to Europe to film a remake of an awful script which he had to take because he needed the money to pay his legal fees.
Again, I never had any interest in speculating an outcome, and that was most certainly never my intent.
Get your gut out of where your brain should be.
The argument here is not reasonability of his defense against the charges...the issue is the confidence of the court that that Polansky would appear as agreed to face the charges.
Bail has little to with the likely outcome of the underlying case; the standard for bail is simply the probability that defendant will be around to face the court when called. The amount of bail turns on what level of potential loss is sufficent to ensure that an individual will appear. In other words, the threat of material loss serves as an incentive to appear.
It's virtully impossible to make a "reasonable" claim that the probability that someone who has enough money to go anywhere and has been on the lam for 30+ years will in fact appear this time is high enough to satisfy the court. That's especially true when it is clear that many highly placed individuals stand ready to help him to continue to evade any legal proceeding they deem as "misguided" , and as you note, will help him maintain his livelihood.
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
You've conveniently omitted steps 0 and 1 1/2.
0: The judge agreed that he would accept a guilty plea on the lesser "sex with an underage person" charge, and in return he would sentence Polanski to time served. This deal was made at the request of the family of the victim in order to avoid forcing the girl the undergo the trauma of a trial.
1 1/2: The day before the official sentence was to be pronounced, the judge said he'd changed his mind and was going to sentence Polanksi to 50 years.
Step 1 1/2 means there was no plea agreement, since it takes both sides living up to their side of the agreement for the agreement to be in force. Thus, Polanski's guilty plea is void.
If the prosecutor can convince a judge that Polanski can still receive a fair trial on the original charges, then perhaps a trial could still take place. But I believe it's highly likely Polanski would ultimately prevail in either getting the charges dismissed or getting any guilty verdict overturned on appeal.
Alternatively, a new judge could abide by the original agreement, accept the original guilty plea, and sentence Polanski to time served.
Prosecution on the flight charge is another matter altogether, and I think Polanski would be convicted. However, there are mitigating circumstances, and I'm guessing Polanski would serve no more than a year or two.
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
You're a little off in your analysis. If a judge agrees to parameters of the sentence pursuant to a guilty plea, then THAT is part of the agreement, too. Yes, the judge can change his mind until the gavel falls, but in that case no agreement exists and a motion to retract the guilty plea would automatically be granted.
Note also that if a judge DOES renege on the agreement subsequent to a guilty plea, he has potentially compromised the prosecution of the case, since the retracted guilty plea is potentially highly prejudicial. For a high-profile defendant such as Polanski, there might be no recourse but to dismiss.
Another aspect of a plea agreement is that the accused and his legal team may "cooperate" with the prosecution in ways that close off viable avenues of defense. If a judge then unilaterally vacates the agreement, the accused's due process options may have been compromised.
Polanski is entitled to no more than the same treatment as anyone else. He SHOULD be prosecuted on the flight charge. Attempting to sentence or prosecute him on the sex charges is, I believe, going to be very problematical.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
I agree the sex charges are difficult to work with, & we have a victim who's now sympathetic to the accused. We shall see...
1prophet
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 5,313
- 534
- 126
In the current climate in America that portrays child sex offenders as the lowest of the low, whether it be from television shows like to Catch a Predator , groups such as Perverted Justice , or actual high profile cases that led to Megan's Law making it look like you have to keep your kids on a leash at all times because there might be a child predator just around the corner,
Mr. Polanski's best defense would be to fight extradition in order to stay out of the USA.
Even though many would like to tell him "Why don't you have a seat over there" at the very least.
Do we know for sure if the Judge did renege on a deal or is that just an accusation? We've already seen one prosecutor who said that he coached the Judge admit that he was lying about that whole incident.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
Yep, sort of blows a hole in that argument. The guy is retired, he has nothing to gain by coming clean.
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
Well, a few pages back in this thread, there's an excerpt from an interview Larry King did with the lawyer for the victim. Obviously, that lawyer could be lying or forgetful, but his account of what transpired makes clear that the judge HAD agreed to time already served, and that the judge went off the deep end. It's pretty damning stuff and casts the whole situation in a different light.
I've already read that transcript. I'm just stating that it's an accusation at this point. It needs to be properly brought into a court of law, otherwise it's meaningless.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Not exactly. I did some brief research. The two sides in a plea deal are the defendant and the prosecutor. Both appear to have lived up to their agreements. Polanski's to plead guilty, the prosecutor to reduce the charge and recommend a certain sentence.
The judge is not party to the agreement, he merely approves or rejects it.
The interesting part is the sentencing. If it is not explicitly part of the plea deal, known as a "sentencing plea", and rests merely upon the prosecutors recommendation, then the judge does not have to abide by the recommended sentence. Further, where the sentence is a mere recommendation, a judge not abiding by the recommended sentence does not give the defendant the right to withdraw his plea.
However, any sentence must be "fair and reasonable" and 50 years for the crime Polanski plead to is most likely so far out of the realm of anyone else sentenced to that crime that an appeal on the sentence would almost certainly overrule the judge's sentence, and either enforce the deal as plead, remand for a sentence appropriate to the plea deal, or throw it all out and remand for trial, at which point Polanski can reinitiate plea bargaining and/or move for a new judge. Since the old judge is long dead, I have no idea what would happen if Polanski came back now.
But the plea deal was not voided by either of the parties not adhering to the deal.
Anyway, the research I did had lots of caveats, exceptions, case-by-case fact patters with different outcomes, which vary from state to state. Frankly anyone who says what would happen if is brought back is making at best an educated guess.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
We have the victim's attorney AND the senior defense attorney both stating that to be the case and that [I think I read] Polanski could not retract his plea. As it stands he is a convicted [could be misdemeanor... victim's attorney Larry Silver said it was but I'd like confirmation on that] felon.
I have been trying to get the bail hearing transcripts and the financial status papers that were submitted to the court but no luck so far. Mainly cuz some feel he was 'not so rich' after having made 'Rosemary's baby' and 'Chinatown' and another movie a bit before this event. I'm somewhat familiar with how the pie gets sliced in the business and when his 'Chinatown' hit the Oscar gold the re-release alone and residuals in '76 dollars would be worth many millions on that movie alone not to mention what he earned for directing them.
But that is another story.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
A plea deal is always passed by the judge. The parties to the action want to know if the judge will buy off on it. IF the judge says yes the parties act on his word but he can change his word and sentence as he sees fit but that is hardly ever done. I can think of a case in which a plea was agreed but the defendent was involved in some other matter and the judge sent the plea back and they redid it for a longer sentence.
In law, but more specifically regarding testimony, there is a term that fits the Wells bill...(the guy who said he lied about the influence on the judge. He was a prosecutor) "prior inconsistent statement". that means that he will be impeachable big time if this goes before a court. We have all the officers of the court saying the same thing... The judge went off the deep end but why might be the question... and the why is not relevant to the issue.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
After a little thought, he'll never have a trial it'll be pled out. Polansli has admitted too much in the years on the run, any prosecutor that can make it into the courtroom will eat Polanski alive on the stand.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Would you please present whatever your are referring to specifically here?
The judge sent Polanski to a 90 day psychological evaluation in Chino on the basis of the plea agreement, and only changed his mind after the psychologist released Polanski after 42 days with the recommendation of probation.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
The guy who allegedly coached the judge was an ADA but not associated with the case directly. He spoke in the documentry from awhile back saying he coached the judge, etc. but recanted that and said he was trying to make himself look big or to that effect.
There are some comments on that 90 day thingi... something about Polanski could not appeal that. And you can't appeal that kind of fact finding evaluation. To my knowledge anyhow. The coach mentioned this in the documentry if I remember correctly... but I think he recanted that as well.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter