PDA

View Full Version : Switzerland Won't Extradite Polanski to the US



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7

reckless
07-13-2010, 08:40 PM
The law in California is unlawful sex with a minor, Penal Code section 261.5. The relevant provision is:


Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

I thought it might be interesting to note that I had a recent case where one of my client's employees was arrested under the same law. He was 24 and the girl was 16, so it was under a slightly different provision but he was convicted of a felony with punishment of "imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison." He was sentenced to 180 days in jail, but served 2/3 of that time because offenders are credited with three days of time served for every two days actually served. Polanski served 42 days in California before he fled, plus spent a further 68 days in jail in Switzerland before he was released on bail and placed in house arrest. That adds up to 110 days in jail (or the equivalent of 165 days of credited time under California's rules). So even if Polanski got returned to California, the amount of time he has spent in jail is about equivalent to the total he might possibly receive as a sentence for the crime even under the current law being applied.


I see.

Well, that's a shame.
Not really. The prosecutor had no chance of convicting Polanski on a charge of rape, because the girl made it clear in 1978 that she would not testify.

Polymer Bob
07-13-2010, 08:41 PM
They dropped the rape charge in exchange for a guilty plea on unlawful sex with a minor I believe.

Strange they plea bargained down to 3 months in jail. Could their case have been that weak? Maybe the little girl was afraid to testify.

Coco
07-13-2010, 09:19 PM
The law in California is unlawful sex with a minor, Penal Code section 261.5. The relevant provision is:



I thought it might be interesting to note that I had a recent case where one of my client's employees was arrested under the same law. He was 24 and the girl was 16, so it was under a slightly different provision but he was convicted of a felony with punishment of "imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison." He was sentenced to 180 days in jail, but served 2/3 of that time because offenders are credited with three days of time served for every two days actually served. Polanski served 42 days in California before he fled, plus spent a further 68 days in jail in Switzerland before he was released on bail and placed in house arrest. That adds up to 110 days in jail (or the equivalent of 165 days of credited time under California's rules). So even if Polanski got returned to California, the amount of time he has spent in jail is about equivalent to the total he might possibly receive as a sentence for the crime even under the current law being applied.


When did inmates start getting credit for 3 days for every 2 served? Was this the practice when Polanski was sentenced?

And how many days are appropriate on the flight charge?

MOIJTO
07-13-2010, 09:48 PM
Does anyone now what the actual charge is against Polanski? The articles linked say that the US dropped the rape charge.

I believe it has to do with drugging the 16 year old and having sex without her consent. Of course that is not rape...:rolleyes:

Ziggy
07-13-2010, 09:50 PM
Yes, a clash that Polanski and his attorney exploited. As so many in this thread have claimed that if the US REALLY wanted Polanski they could have unsealed this document - by the same token if the Swiss REALLY wanted to allow Polanski's extradition they could have done so without this document. In this case, the rapist won.

Jesus wept, the law can't be bend according to your will just because YOU REALLY WANT SOMETHING.

You're really making yourself sound like a petulant 5-year old that must get this toy or he will stamp his foot and scream.

Squibble
07-13-2010, 09:56 PM
Do you have a source confirming that's the case? A link perhaps?

This will have to do, given my personal time constraints:

http://interstatedeposition.com/compellingout-of-statewitness.htm


A subpoena issued by a state court is valid only within its geographic boundaries. Consequently, a subpoena issued in a state within which an action is pending cannot be used or served in another state to compel a non‑party witness who resides or works in the foreign state to give testimony or produce records.

And look at the definition of "unavailable as a witness" under California Evidence Code section 240 (http://law.onecle.com/california/evidence/240.html).

The principle is equally applicable to sovreign countries as it is to different states within the United States. If you want to know more, you might do your own research or go down to your country law library and ask the librarian there.


According to the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/13/polanski-decision-irks-us-law-enforcement/) they tried to have the documents unsealed and were unable.


In a statement, the Swiss Justice Ministry said it had asked for records of closed-door 1977 court hearings to determine whether Polanski had effectively served his full sentence, but a Los Angeles Superior Court judge decided in May that the records had to remain secret, according to WSJ. As a result, the Swiss said, they couldn’t determine whether Polanski had already served his full term. So, “the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded…would have no foundation,” said the Swiss Justice Ministry.

So this was not a matter of they could have done it if they really wanted to. And the Swiss decided to take the word of Polanski and his attorney over that of the California and US Attorney General's that he has not served his term.

You shouldn't believe everything you read in a blog, even when it's on the website of a leading newspaper, in this case The Wall Street Journal.

From an article published on May 6, 2010 (http://www.accesshollywood.com/da-opposes-polanskis-request-for-sealed-testimony_article_32028):


Prosecutors are asking a Los Angeles judge to reject a request by Roman Polanski’s attorneys to unseal transcripts of closed-door testimony in the case.

Polanski’s attorneys want a judge to unseal testimony earlier this year by the original prosecutor handling the case, Roger Gunson. They say it will help their efforts to fight Polanksi’s extradition from Switzerland, where he remains on house arrest.

Prosecutors on Thursday argued in a court filing that Polanski’s motion should be rejected because he remains a fugitive.

So there you have it. The hearing was this year, not in 1977, the prosecutors actively opposed unsealing the transcript, and the blogger you quoted didn't check his facts very well.

uyeahu
07-13-2010, 10:04 PM
I believe it has to do with drugging the 16 year old and having sex without her consent. Of course that is not rape...:rolleyes:

Actually she was 13, not 16. Her grand jury testimony is available online (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html) for any who'd care to read it. I'm sure the prosecutors were concerned about how a trial would go since it was a 13 year old girl testifying against a sympathetic celebrity director with powerful friends. Geimer has never recanted her testimony, nor to my knowledge said she wouldn't testify against him if subpoenaed.

heckles
07-13-2010, 10:08 PM
Of course that is not rape...

Or, as expert Whoopi Goldberg tells us, it wasn't rape-rape. So good to know.

Tesla
07-13-2010, 10:20 PM
So the prosecution scuttled the extradition.

MOIJTO
07-13-2010, 11:44 PM
Actually she was 13, not 16. Her grand jury testimony is available online (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html) for any who'd care to read it. I'm sure the prosecutors were concerned about how a trial would go since it was a 13 year old girl testifying against a sympathetic celebrity director with powerful friends. Geimer has never recanted her testimony, nor to my knowledge said she wouldn't testify against him if subpoenaed.

Thanks, Yup, protecting their own, disgusting.



Or, as expert Whoopi Goldberg tells us, it wasn't rape-rape. So good to know.

Hmm, I guess when I was 17 I was raped raped, glad Whoopi cleared that up for me! (she is disgusting too) :wall:

WindSpirit
07-14-2010, 12:53 AM
Sorry, how's this - kiss my simple ass Jackie. Better? How about you two take your niceties to PM? :rolleyes:

Ziggy
07-14-2010, 04:18 PM
Johann Hair being furious about Polanski being let free:
http://johannhari.com/2010/07/13/congratulations-polanski-defenders-now-the-child-rapist-walks-unpunished

*Jen*
07-14-2010, 06:14 PM
Hmm, I guess when I was 17 I was raped raped, glad Whoopi cleared that up for me! (she is disgusting too) :wall:

I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sorry you went through that. I know a few people on this board have been through something similar, and I know a surprisingly large number of people in real life who have been raped or sexually assaulted, including myself (not raped, thank God), and it really disgusts me that people are trying to mitigate what Polanski did. There is no justification.

However, I honestly do not believe there was any Swiss conspiracy to free him. Anyone who has been on the wrong side of Swiss administrative procedures (:shuffle:)knows that they stick to the rules, whatever they may be, no matter how stupid they seem etc.

It is really unfortunate and I hope that there is another chance in future to make Polanski face justice.

Ziggy
07-14-2010, 06:51 PM
Those who are very angry with the system need to remember that it works both ways.

If such procedures weren't in place, there would be nothing to stop innocent people being convicted for various personal or political reasons.

Jackie Sparrow
07-14-2010, 07:12 PM
Johann Hair being furious about Polanski being let free:
http://johannhari.com/2010/07/13/congratulations-polanski-defenders-now-the-child-rapist-walks-unpunished Who is Johann Hari?