Polanski's attorneys cite secret meetings in 1977, demand director's release

Attorneys for Roman Polanski petitioned a state appellate court Thursday to free the film director, citing secret discussions between high-level prosecutors and the judge during the original 1977 case.

Polanski's lawyers described "communications" that involved Laurence J. Rittenband, the original judge in the case, Michael Montagna, a supervising deputy district attorney, and Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Stephen Trott, according to the 68-page court filing.

Trott and Montagna then blocked an effort by the prosecutor on the case to have Rittenband removed, the papers alleged.

Polanski's attorneys said the meetings were further proof the director was treated unfairly and should not be extradited to L.A. for sentencing in the case.

Rittenband's conduct was the subject of an HBO documentary, which presented evidence that the judge acted inappropriately. 

Polanski had agreed to plead guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor in exchange for the other charges being dismissed. He agreed that Rittenband would determine the sentence. Rittenband sent the filmmaker to the prison in Chino for a 90-day "diagnostic evaluation" that he said would "enable the Court to reach a fair and just decision."

Prison officials released Polanski after 42 days and advised the judge that testing indicated his sentence should not include additional prison time. Rittenband labeled the prison report "a whitewash" and said he planned to send Polanski back to prison for an additional 48 days if he voluntarily agreed to deportation. Informed of this by his attorney, Polanski left the country, seeking refuge in France.

Attorneys interviewed in the documentary said Rittenband improperly sent Polanski to Chino for the purpose of punishment rather than testing. The judge, they said, had agreed to set Polanski free after that stay, but reneged and decided to imprison the director again at his official sentencing in what amounted to a second round of punishment.

Polanski's attorneys said in the new court papers that the prosecutor on the case, Roger Gunson, wanted to have the judge disqualified from the case.

After Trott and Montagna met with Rittenband, they talked to Gunson, the papers say. They told him that Rittenband admitted to misconduct, but they told Gunson he could not file paperwork seeking the judge's removal from the Polanski case, according to the court documents.

Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the L.A. County district attorney's office, declined to comment on the specific allegations because they were contained in sealed testimony. "We plan to respond in writing, but we don't think it's appropriate to be engaging in out-of-court comments on a matter that is still pending."

Polanski is now under house arrest in Switzerland, fighting efforts to have him extradited back to the U.S. for sentencing.

Last month, Polanski's legal battle to avoid returning to the U.S. got a boost when a Swiss official said extradition proceedings stemming from his three-decade-old child sex case were on indefinite hold.

The Swiss Justice Ministry's deputy director said authorities would not make any decision on Polanski's case until courts in California definitively ruled on whether the director could be sentenced without returning to the U.S. The issue is not pending before any California court, but Polanski's lawyers have said they will appeal a lower court judge's refusal earlier this year to sentence him in absentia.

-- Andrew Blankstein

Photo: Associated Press

Comments

[Russ Pinney]

If this child rapist doesn't come back to face the music there's going to be a lot of angry people!

[Omega]

It seems that People magazine was onto a Judicial problem in Polanski's case back in 1977.

The People magazine article misspelled the Judge's last name calling the Judge Rittenbrand instead of Rittenband

See the article at

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20068014,00.html

No matter, Rittenbrand is a better name for the Santa Monica Judge since he unfairly branded Roman Polanski a rapist to People magazine in 1977, before Polanski's trial by saying "and this doesn't look like anything other than a routine rape case to me."

So here's the Santa Monica Judge blabbing off his mouth to the press branding Polanski a rapist, in advance of Polanski's trial, which trial never happened, and the only conviction that Polanski ever received in the Santa Monica Courthouse was for consensual sex with a minor!

Polanski like everyone else in America is innocent until proven guilty.

So the Judge on Polanski's case acted with prejudice against Polanski by giving his decision in advance to the press before the trial ever took place, and the trial never did take place, because of the plea bargain agreement.

Even today the press keep using the word rape, which is inflammatory and is a defamation of Roman Polanski’s character, since that charge was thrown out.

Also Polanski was prejudged, unfairly & publicly branded by this Santa Monica Judge Rittenband,

just as another victim from same Santa Monica Courthouse has been unfairly publicly stigmatized for reporting official abuse of power that included being sexually molested by a teacher in a California College and then assaulted and battered in a Santa Monica Courtroom in front of the judge by undocumented white county of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputies, which stigmatization the 9th Circuit U.S. Federal Court of Appeals affirmed in their unpublished decision of 25th June, 2001.

Two people unfairly branded by Judges which judicial abuse first emanated from the same Santa Monica Courthouse equals abuse of Official abuse of power, discrimination, a double standard in sexual assault cases where the scales of justice are predetermined to swing your way by California 's Judges if you happened to be employed by California, but not if you were born in Europe.

[Bobby]

Let us not forget that Roman moved Natasha Kinski into his home as his lover when he was 52 years old and she was 15 years old...how many other young girls has he used?

[Palma Mariachi]

Marina Zenovich’s movie Polanski: Wanted & Desired did more than let the genie out of the bottle, she succeeded in opening up Pandora's Box.

A Los Angeles federal district court Judge mentioned Pandora’s Box to me when he recused himself from a case which involved Judicial Misconduct, and which May have included his own.

So what’s the answer - Keep Pandora’s box shut and contain the status quo of Judicial, Police & Prosecutorial misconduct against the people of California in addition to Polanski, or open up the floodgates so that all the misery can fall out, no longer contained, & no longer invisible?

Jon said I wonder how thankful Roman Polanski is now to Ms. Zenovich for defending him? Sure, we get to sit around and debate the great questions of celebrity, sex, justice, fairness, and legal procedure... while a 77-year-old artist the world was content to leave alone is now a prisoner again... where. Zenovich took a lurid old story, uncovered a few dollops of "shocking" new information, determined to let the genie out of the bottle... and boy, she certainly succeeded.

[Marshal]

I really wonder how much longer people can sustain their blind belief in something that was never tried in any court, after the mother pressed for that handy plea bargain the judge then simply reneged on, after no medical evidence supported her daughter's claims of rape and sodomy from the start you can even find online as more than clear court transcript report. The other counts of oral sex, or plying her with drugs and booze which were dropped are to this day mere allegations and not fact. To call him a child rapist or paedophile 'by angry people' is pure idiocy and wishful thinking.

All we have are the girl’s Grand Jury testimony which was never seriously impugned nor ever proven, and to me anyone is innocent until proven guilty not voice versa no matter who they are - and not simply guilty because some teen cries rape that could not even be proven already then or t he public wants him t be. I really hate reading the inane repetition of: he drugged and raped and sodomised the girl – when NONE of that was ever proven. How stupid are people, especially when no one else had ever accused him of anything similar and the woman later said often enough in interviews that it wasn’t rape and that he hadn't hurt her. But I guess people missed that.

He pleaded to what he did - unlawful sex with a minor - nothing more, nor did he ever admit to anything else as people keep repeating too. Rittenband had it in for Polanski from day one and he never stood a chance of fairness from the get go simply for who Polanski was - and as we can see, to this very day no justice was served except more public stupidity and blind diatribe ranting on about this. Believing in anything else is blind folly or to go on about Kinski in a ridiculous crusade of moral indignation over something that happened three decades ago, most never heard of before or weren’t even alive then. They were together for three years and he furthered her into the film industry, not used Kinski as people love repeating. They all slept with minors - so don’t bother me with the morality of this particular case they have exploited for political purpose by now - and they all do so to this day, but still have stellar careers going because they're all Americans.

It's pure reprehensible racism and unacceptable abuse of the law above all. I was there - I know of the case and of the Seventies first hand - and you all need a serious reality check here, not to see that the only immoral act was the judge’s misconduct on several levels over the duration of nearly a year before he was finally removed by both attorneys unfortunately only after Polanski had fled. The fact that no one had corrected a string of legal transgressions to this day after more than three decades is even more disgraceful but certainly not surprising. But that's idiot DA Cooley for you, and Judge Espinoza is just as useless. No surprise there.

[Tre]

WB said."Do you really think Polanski's arrest came out of the LA district attorney's office?"

No the first call may have come from higher up because the movie "The Ghost Writer" speaks about Official connections to war crimes and this possibly could have hit an Official sore spot.

And talking of war crimes would you rather be oppressed by being a prisoner in Abu Ghraib,

or by being a young girl in Roman Polanski’s hot tub, which may have been a consensual affair, and thus not true oppression.

or would you rather be oppressed by being assaulted and battered in a Santa Monica Courtroom California by a number of undocumented white County of Los Angeles Sheriff Deputies and the African American Police Officer defendant in front of the County of Los Angeles Judge, who is now a California Justice, in the very same Santa Monica Courthouse as Roman Polanski.

for reporting Santa Monica College Officials and their police cover up of sexual assault complaint against a photography instructor that occurred from behind in his color printing darkroom class.

Bottom line is this - the amount of oppression that Roman Polanski could bring is rather minor in comparison to the Abuse of Power and Oppression Officials en masse do create under color of law,

or create through ratifying the "Torture Memos" which then enables Officials to eviscerate people's civil rights regardless of whether the torture occurs behind closed doors at the Santa Monica Courthouse in California, or abroad.