L.A. NOW

Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

Polanski's prosecution motivated by politics, not justice, his attorneys assert

Roman Polanski's lawyers suggested in a legal filing Tuesday that prosecutors were motivated by politics and not justice in opposing the acclaimed director's request to be sentenced in absentia in a three-decade-old child sex case.

"Politics seems to be interfering with the just administration of the law," Polanski's attorneys wrote.  The filing urged Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza to go forward with a sentencing hearing that Polanski's lawyers claim will expose misconduct in the original handling of the case.

The Los Angeles District Attorney's office argued in papers filed last week that sentencing Polanski in absentia would allow a long-standing and notorious fugitive to dictate court proceedings.

Referring to the director's contention that the judge in 1978 reneged on a plan to count a pre-sentencing prison stint served by Polanski as his formal sentence, the lawyers wrote, "if the District Attorney were truly concerned about the fair and equitable operation of the judicial system, the office would readily admit that Mr. Polanski has served his agreed-upon punishment...and stipulate to the entry of final judgment."

Espinoza has set a Friday hearing for arguments on the issue of sentencing in absentia. A state appellate court proposed that course of action in a decision last month. Polanski, 76, who pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977, is currently under house arrest in Switzerland pending a decision by a court there on whether to extradite him.

-- Harriet Ryan

 
Comments () | Archives (7)

Polandksi's lawyers are right. This is motivated solely by Steve Cooley running for state Attorney General and wanting to "look tough," what better than a high-profile target like Polanski, and spending a fortune of our tax dollars hunting his whereabout to catch him at a major European film festival. (Since he's owned a house in Switzerland for years, it seems Cooley waited until he could make a big splash with the arrest.)

What about the thousands of rapists on our streets of L A NOW? The County including Cooley's friend Sheriff Lee Baca whine there's no money to test the DNA rape kits which would catch REAL rapists. What he really thinks is, there's no glory or attention in it for HIM. Polanski seems like a creepy old perv and what he did was very wrong, but his victim doesn't want the media circus all over again, and this is a misuse of taxpayer resources by a rightwing Republican DA running against "liberal Hollywood" and Democrats.

So let's just ignore all fugitives because "what about the thousands of [insert criminal type] that are on our streets now!" What a crock... The victim has no say in criminal charges; the people demand justice and justice need be blind, not favoring some celebrity rapist.

Even if he does get time served on the original charge I hope they lock him away for evading justice for all this time just like they would any random person who did the same.

"Politics and not justice?" How about celebrity not accountability? Big Hollywood has been hard at work trying their damnedest to spin the brutal kidnap, drugging and rape of a 13 year old girl into something worthy of a Law and Order script.

The notion that the extradition of Polanski is motivated by Cooley's political aspirations to the AG's Office makes for good tabloid journalism, until one realizes that the attempts to finally secure justice began long before Cooley was even considered a candidate for AG.

Then trying to justify absolving Polanski of any responsibility for a crime that would see mere mortals serving the rest eternity behind bars as a "waste of money" because rape kits should be processed instead, is yet another carefully crafted piece of meaningless spin. The two have nothing to do with each other.

If rape kit processing were a viable trade off to prosecution and imprisonment, then why doesn't Big Hollywood argue that other, mere mortals, be released from prison or simply not prosecuted, so that more rape kits can be processed with the money saved?

Of course, Big Hollywood would be the first to scream "Injustice" if the DA were to decide not to prosecute the whackjobs who stalk celebrities so that rape kits could be processed. And what would happen when a Hollywood bad boy was nailed as a result of processing a 12 year old rape kit? We'd have the Polanski argument all over again.

Polanski needs to receive the same justice as any other criminal, because that is who he is; just another criminal. Steve Cooley deserves a little more support from the media in this battle because treating Polanski any differently to any other criminal sets an alarming precedent.

Yeah, justice, sitting in his chalet, under house arrest.

There is no link to the other Polanski's articles for this article

Polanski's prosecution motivated by politics, not justice...

Also in another recent article on Polanski the word prosecutorial was omitted from the phrase prosecutorial misconduct and another word inserted instead of prosecutorial.

Why no link, and why the errors ?

He is still a criminal. Do the time. Wealth has been a free ride too long. Sitting in house arrest. Let him get housed with Bubba.

Well @Posted by: kevin, you are essentially correct. But in addition, there is the motive of PROFIT involved in this Polanski prosecution, as it is in EVERY prosecution in California right down to the lowley traffic ticket.
As you must know..... WHAT? You mean you didn't know that 'your' (misnomered) JustUS system is a lawyer/judge OWNED PRIVATE FOR PROFIT CORPORATION operating in SEDITION and TREASON to the CONstitution of the US and California (and their oaths of office)!
Oh, this comment must be lunitic rantings like those "Patriots" espouse. Uh huh, well then try this web site: http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_cd038mx
which lists info on 20 million US "companies". There you will find listed;
"The Judicial Council Of California (Judicial Council) Is this your company?
770 L St Ste 700
Sacramento, CA 95814-3358
Phone: (916) 323-3121"
Thats the main Sacramento branch.
..."The Judicial Council Of California is a private company categorized under State Courts and located in Sacramento, CA."...
You did notice the word PRIVATE, didn't you. Just do a further search on the term "Judicial Council Of California" and you will find all 583 courts listed that they operate in California. Fraud uprising anyone?
Pulitizer Prize LAT's?
And yes, with further digging you will discover that the Council and it's little Branches of theft all have Dun & Bradstreet registration numbers. I wonder how well the shares are performing?
So you see kevin, those "tax dollars" spent hunting Polanski are very well wasted in this debt based economy. They thrive on this business and getting hands on Polanski will hopefully insure they get paid TWICE on the "charge(s)".
No wonder Jesus condemned the lawyers, WITHOUT ANY HOPE OF REDEMPTION in Luke Ch 11 and 20!
Knowledge is power!
PS: Next time any of you are 'Polanskied', file a Mandamus into the your case with the site info attached (including the rest of the research), see how fast the judge exits the bench without explaination... then file a complaint with you nearest military Provost martial.


Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847.

Categories




Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: