Latest update: 23/01/2010 

- Roman Polanski


US judge denies defence request for Polanski to be sentenced in absentia

A Los Angeles judge on Friday denied a request by Roman Polanski's lawyers for the filmmaker to be sentenced in absentia regarding a 1978 case involving sex with a minor, saying Polanski must return to California. His lawyers plan to appeal.

By Nicolas Rushworth (video)
News Wires (text)
 

AFP - A Los Angeles judge on Friday denied a bid by lawyers for Roman Polanski requesting the fugitive filmmaker be sentenced in absentia in his decades-old child sex case.
   
Polanski's attorneys had filed a motion urging Judge Peter Espinoza to sentence the director without him having to appear in the United States.
   
However Espinoza denied the motion at a hearing Friday, saying the only way the 1978 case could be resolved is if Polanski returned to California.
   
"I choose to insist in defense of the integrity of the judicial system. He needs to appear," Espinoza said. "I've made it clear he needs to surrender.... Motion is denied."

FRANCE 24 correspondent Gallagher Fenwick reports from Los Angeles on today's ruling in the Roman Polanski case.

Polanski's lawyers told reporters immediately after the hearing they would appeal the judge's decision.
   
Polanski, 76, is under house arrest in Switzerland, where he has been held since his detention in September on an arrest warrant.
   
The Oscar-winning film-maker fled the United States 32 years ago before being sentenced on charges of having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.
   
Prosecutors last week filed a motion opposing any move to sentence Polanski in absentia, asserting it would set a dangerous precedent.
   
"The defendant is a fugitive," Deputy District Attorney David Walgren wrote in court papers. "The defendant should not, indeed must not, be allowed to dictate to this court or any other court, under what terms these proceedings should proceed. Mr. Polanski must surrender."
   
In an exchange with Espinoza on Friday, Walgren was cautioned against referring to Polanski as a "child rapist."
   
"This fugitive, this criminal, this convicted felon, this child rapist must surrender to the court," Walgren said, before being cut off by the judge.
   
"That's not helpful," Espinoza stated, noting that Polanski had pleaded guilty only to unlawful sex and not the more serious charge of rape. "I'd rather not inflame," Espinoza said.
   
The victim in the case, Samantha Geimer, had supported Polanski's in absentia request.
   
A California appeals court in December rejected a bid by the director's legal team to have the case dismissed on the grounds of judicial misconduct during the initial proceedings.
   
Polanski's lawyer Chad Hummel referred to the allegations of misconduct during Friday's hearing, saying his client "does not trust this system."
   
Polanski is alleged to have given his victim champagne and drugs during a 1977 photo shoot at the Hollywood Hills home of actor friend Jack Nicholson before having sex with her despite her protests.
   
The director was initially charged with six felony counts, including rape and sodomy. The charge was later reduced to unlawful sexual intercourse after a plea deal agreed in part to spare his victim the ordeal of a trial.
   
Polanski later served 42 days at a secure unit undergoing psychiatric evaluation but fled the United States on the eve of his sentencing in 1978 amid fears that the trial judge planned to go back on a previously agreed plea deal.
   
Polanski's flight from justice came after a string of hit films including "Rosemary's Baby" and "Chinatown."
   
The director, whose wife Sharon Tate was horrifically murdered by Charles Manson's "family" in 1969, won an Oscar in 2003 for "The Pianist."
 

Comments (1)

Justice

Claiming invasion of privacy, Polanski demands "justice" for his wife and children after photographs of them, taken near his Swiss chalet, are published in French newspapers. Agreeing that Polanski's wife and children had been "violated," a French Court granted them monetary damages.

Yet, Polanski whines that the only injustice arising from his rape of a thirteen year old girl is the persistent determination of the State of California to prosecute him for having "unlawful sex" with an American child.

And for decades now, that same French "justice system" has actively protected Polanski from the State of California's efforts to obtain justice for the American child, who was raped at the tender age of thirteen by the then middle-aged Polanski.

Is it because she is an American child that the French and other European Courts are unwilling to recognize Polanski's "violation" of her? Alternatively, do the French and European Courts not recognize her as having sufficient human worth to have been violated by Polanski's rape because she was not a child of the "privileged class" to which Polanski's wife and children belong?

Post new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

Related Content
Close