comment #1

Rich S. says ...

I'm not sure how prosecutorial misconduct would lead to a dismissal of charges, if there were probable cause to bring the charges in the first place. Misconduct could of course be used to overturn the results of a trial. But if the evidence were there (and didn't Polanski admit to the actions?), then the charges would stand.

I would imagine this might lead to a review of the case by the current prosecutors. But the ultimate effect might still be for Polanski to have to take his chances and return to face the music.

comment #2

dukedog says ...

Rich S.: You are right. He will have to come back here and face the Judge. He plead guilty, so there wouldn't be any trial or an appeal, but what his complaint CAN do is wipe the slate clean and start the whole thing over. That is why he would have to appear before the Judge to make it happen. The Judge can, and in my opinion, should do is to credit the time he did serve with a new guilty plea and allocution in Court and call it a day. What he did was wrong, but he tried to face the music back then and got screwed by the Judge on this one, big time.

comment #3

lazarus says ...

It's times like these that I'm glad Wells enacted the right-wing purge, so we don't have to read a bunch of lynch mob overtures.

comment #4

BurmaShave says ...

Polanski needs to direct a bio-pic of himself starring Mathieu Amalric.

comment #5

D.Z. says ...

"Will Polanski Ordeal End?"

Yeah, pedophiles really have it tough being able to relax in France.

duke: Um, running away like O.J. isn't facing the music.

comment #6

drbob says ...

I am no apologist for the unethical behavior of the prosecutor's office or the judge, but, the fact remains Polanski drugged and then anally raped a 13 year old girl. I am having difficulty finding sympathy for Polanski. Somebody needs to explain to me why I should feel differently.

comment #7

lazarus says ...

D.Z., OJ ran before he was even arrested. Polanski served time being imprisoned and evaluated. He ran once he learned from his lawyer that he wasn't getting a fair shake from the judge and the D.A.

Please stay out of discussions which have more grey area than your generalizing pronouncements usually make room for. Which is probably most of them, but still.

And Dr. Bob, you're having a hard time having any sympathy for Polanski? How about his wife and unborn child being ritually murdered by a madman's cult?

comment #8

jbf81 says ...

i dont think so

comment #9

jbf81 says ...

sorry lazarus, that means that if anyone kills my family can i drug and rape kids too? I am with drbob, no sympathy WHAT SO EVER. I worked with abused kids ans I can tell you, if it was in my power his ass would be a lot worse, in fact people like him deserve the worst. This scumbag can make the most briliants films, but he still is a scumbag.

comment #10

dukedog says ...

lazarus: Thanks for getting my back on that.

D.Z.: He plead guilty. That IS facing the music. He was willing to serve time (and had already served some time actually) and allocute (admit in open court under oath) as to what he did. I'm not saying he was a good guy. He was a total scumbag, but he should have been given due process. He was not. We don't get to pick and choose who gets a fair shake.

comment #11

D.Z. says ...

lazarus: I'm still wondering why a judge and a D.A. should be more fair to a rapist than the raped. But since there was nothing illegal about their actions, I don't see why Polanski is somehow suddenly in the right on a technicality.

dukedog: Pleading guilty isn't the same as serving out his sentence, which he did not actually do. He did some confinement, and then ran for the hills. And he got his day in court, so I'm not sure what wasn't due process.

comment #12

dukedog says ...

D.Z.: Everyone, no matter what they did, gets due process! We do not get to pick and choose. A crime is an offense against the public at large (legal definition). The Judge and the DA represent the people, and in this case, did not do so in a proper and legal manner. It is completely separate from what happened to that young girl. What happened to her was horrible, plain and simple. This is a completely separate matter. I think we can all agree the best thing would have been for Mr. Polanski to not have done this in the first place, but since that didn't happen, we have to give all criminal defendants due process under the law, whether we feel they deserve it or not. That is Democracy. Lastly, and then I am so done with this, he did not get his day in Court, that is the problem with all this. He was ready to go and make his statement and off to serve his time, but the Judge and DA basically screwed that up by breaking the law themselves! Sheesh.

comment #13

D.Z. says ...

duke: BS. If Polanski wanted his day in court, he should have filed for it. Instead, he ran away, because he knew he was going down. And if the D.A. and judge broke the law, then why has no one else challenged the procedures until now?

comment #14

dukedog says ...

They were the ones prosecuting him, and he could not prove the misconduct at the time. He can now due to the fact that the DA is willing to testify to the conduct, and he wasn't at the time. That is why he is filing for it now and did not do so then. Why nobody challenged the Judge until now is a great question. It was well known in the legal community that this Judge was bad, not just in this case but in others. I don't have an answer for you. It is maddening, for sure. Polanski did not run away because he was going down (he already plead guilty and was ready for his sentence, which DID include more jail time). I know you are just not getting why people are defending a man who drugged and raped a 13 year old. I get it. I was with you until I saw this documentary. He was victimized himself (although not on the level of his victim, to be sure!) by the system. Just separate his court case from the actual crime here. Seems weird to do because isn't the court case ABOUT the crime? Yes, but because he plead guilty, he waived his day in court on the criminal charge. This Motion that he filed is separate. Give the doc a look-see when you have time. I think you'll see what I'm talking about here. Before I saw this, I was like, "He's a coward." It was a LOT more complicated. Stuff the press never even went into, but should have. Now we will just have to wait and see if he comes to LA to appear before the Judge.

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

I imagine the DA's only willing to testify in order to further discredit Polanski, since no one would risk their legal career over a clearly open-and-shut case as this one. And if the judge was so awful, why did the state uphold his decision? And why the hell do I care if a victimizer gets victimized himself? Who's stupid enough to overturn a criminal sentence over procedural misconduct? If courts get enough hell for doing that in racketeering cases, you think they're going to let it slide for a pedophile?! And to me, he's still a coward. If he can't take the rap for an even bigger wrong, then he's got no right to complain.

comment #16

dukedog says ...

When you watch the doc, you'll see that the DA actually states he did wrong (not technically, but he didn't stop and report the Judge, either), and he actually would have done what Polanski did had he been in that situation. My jaw hit the floor when I saw this movie. Check it out when you have time. I totally get where you are coming from on this. I swear. I don't have any sympathy for him at all. I just find the whole thing interesting from a legal-geeky standpoint is all. Basically, this whole thing got swept under the rug when he took off for Europe. Ironically, if he had stayed, the Judge would have been exposed and been in serious trouble himself. Basically, years down the road, the Judge did more and more to clue people into his actions, but no hard evidence. If I remember, the Judge has sinced passed away, so it is going to be very interesting as to what happens. I don't think they are going to overturn this. If he comes to LA, the Judge will probably honor the original plea deal, but give him credit for time served to save the LA courts more embarrassement. He will remain convicted from his original plea and agreement. Interesting thing is, he HAS to come here in person to face the Judge. He can't wait and see in Paris. If he doesn't show, the complaint will be thrown out. He will have to take a big chance. I wonder if he'll show. I have no idea on that one!

comment #17

dukedog says ...

Oh yeah. I've enjoyed the debate. It is nice when people can be respectful, but passionate in a debate online. It usually gets too mean for my taste. Thanks for that.

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

duke: "you'll see that the DA actually states he did wrong (not technically, but he didn't stop and report the Judge, either)"

If not technically, then Polanski has no grounds.

"and he actually would have done what Polanski did had he been in that situation."

Well, yeah, but that's because Polanski could do it. Anyone would want to avoid going to the slammer, even if they're responsible. It'd be a different story if you were in Polanski's situation, but couldn't make a break for it.

As for the verdict, I imagine that if Hilton getting off Scott-free caused a pubic outrage, they sure as hell won't let Polanski off easy. He'll have to at least do community service.

Oh, and I appreciate the constructive arguments, too.

comment #19

Gatrios2010 says ...

I wonder if the Jeffster would feel the same about Polanski if it was his 13 year old son's anus dripping with Roman's cum. "Jett, think of the great movies he's made, you just can't press charges. Anyway, if Polanski pays enough I can finally buy those movie stills of naked Vinessa Shaw"