Because of a movie.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/movies/03webpolanski.html
Apparently a documentary about the case has uncovered evidence of misconduct by the prosecution. A former deputy district attorney, not directly involved with the prosecution, coached and prodded the judge. This communication was not shared with the defence.
Is this likely to get Roman’s conviction overturned?
It may get the conviction overturned. It won’t alter the fact that he took advantage of a 13-year old girl after giving her champagne and Quaaludes.
He may be a good director, but he’s still a little sleazeball.
Meh. He’s not even that good a director. I mean, did you see The Ninth Gate? :dubious: blehk
Another question. If the original conviction is overturned, does he face any charges for fleeing justice?
Interesting historical footnote the 13 year old he was seducing was the daughter of the "Ourisman Girl" spokes-model (popular spokes-model in the in the 70’s & 80’s in the metro Washington area for Ourisman Chevrolet and others) and the court case was the reason she dropped out of sight and took her daughter to Hawaii where no one knew them.
Technically, what he’s trying to do is withdraw a guilty plea, and that’s extremely hard to do. And in fact, the judge was extremely lenient with him at the time. He initially sent Polanski to 90 days of psych evaluation rather than prison, and then allowed Polanski to leave the country midway through that period to work on a movie. Pictures then surfaced showing Polanski partying at Oktoberfest rather than working, so the judge ordered him back to court. Polanski returned, thinking he was just going to have to finish out his psych evaluation, but then he fled the country when he learned that the judge intended to sentence him to prison.
The film suggests some irregular contacts between the judge and the prosecution in the run-up to sentencing, but I don’t believe it ever contends that the sentence the judge was preparing to impose was outside the range prescribed for his offense. It may have been outside what was contemplated in his plea agreement with the prosecution, but presumably the plea was not binding on the court.
Conceivably, Polanski could get a new sentencing hearing, but I expect he’d have to come back to the US for that to happen. I suspect he’d be immediately jailed without bond pending the hearing, and then sentenced to a prison term of some length.
I’d be shocked if his conviction were dismissed.
But does it change the fact that the victim (Samantha Gailey, now 45) has publicly forgiven him, and asked for the charges to be dismissed?
No. Our justice system is not based on whether the victim forgives the perpetrator. Polanski committed a terrible crime, he broke the law and assaulted a young girl.
I watched the movie as someone who has always been very unsympathetic to Polanski, and I still am so far as it pertains to what he did, but I was convnced that there were some questionable activies being engaged in by the judge. It looks like he did renege on the terms of a plea bargain, and maybe Polanski does have a valid complaint there. It doesn’t excuse either the rape or the flight, though. I don’t see how the court can ever overlook the fact that he fled. Even if he could somehow get a new trial or a new plea bargain, he’s got no leg to stand on with reference to the flight. I think the only way he’ll ever get back to the US without visiting the gray bar hotel is a Presidential pardon, and I don’t see that happening either.
This is General Questions. Let’s keep it factual. Thanks.
Gfactor
General Questions Moderator
Which is why I put it here, thanks G.
How would the President have any power to pardon him for state offences?
OK, Gubanatorial pardon. Maybe Arnie will pardon him.