Hmmm,
If you're gonna remind people of the facts, you should get them straight. Polanski never went to trial, never faced a jury of his peers and has never been found guilty. He agreed to a plea bargain on a lesser charge that was proposed by the prosecutor. There's a big difference.
And the reason he's free today is again the fault of the American justice system because they refused to turn over transcripts of 'secret testimony' to the Swiss authorities. Now my question is what the hell is in those transcripts and why was there 'secret testimony' in this case? If it has a bearing on the case, the Swiss should be allowed to review it with the proviso that the contents cannot be released to the public. Once again, they shoot themselves in the foot. Fools.
In other news...Mel Gibson is considering applying for French citizenship and moving to Switzerland.
Actually, he'd be free TODAY in any case because by now he would have served out any likely sentence, even a harsh one. More accurately, the reason he never paid for the crime of statutory rape (exactly what it was) is he ran. You seem to keep missing the fact that in the U.S.:
"Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court, and different States and jurisdictions have different rules." I am not exactly sure what precise legal rules applied in this case, but if as in most cases the court had to give approval to the plea bargain in this case then Polanki's lawyer would have known very well that the judge was not bound by the existence of any plea agreement itself. If so there was no tricky or breach of the legal rules, no dishonesty by the judge at all...and any contention that Polanski was justified in running because he was betrayed is totally false.
Now right here I went to the transcript to see if I could find exactly what the judge was legally bound to under the laws of California in the event of a plea bargain. Here is an excerpt from the transcript specifically spelling out the judge's legal latitude in this particular case. The prosecutor Gunson is specifically going over the legal ramifications of the plea agreement with Polanski and his lawyer. Here are the "facts":
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea10.html
Gunson (Prosecuting attorney) : Did you understand that she was 13 on March 10, 1977, when you had sexual intercourse with her?
Defendant (Polanski): Yes.
Gunson: Has anyone threatened you or threatened anyone near and dear to you, in order to get you to plead guilty?
Defendent (Polanski): No.
Gunson: The District Attorney will make a motion to dismiss the remaining pending charges after sentencing. Other than that promise has anyone made any promises to you, such as a lesser sentence or probation, or any reward?
Defendant: No.
Gunson: Do you have any questions about your plea?
Defendant: No.
Gunson: Are you pleading guilty freely and voluntarily?
Defendant: Yes.
Gunson: Mr. Dalton (Polanski’s attorney) Do you believe that you have had sufficient time to discuss this case and all of it’s ramifications with you client?
Dalton: Yes.
Gunson: Have you fully discussed with him his rights, his defenses, and the possible consequences to him of his plea of guilty?
Dalton: Yes.
Gunson: Are you aware of any promises that have been made to your client, that have not been stated on the record and in open court today?
Dalton: No.
Gunson: Do you consent to the plea?
Dalton: Yes.
Gunson: Your Honor, may I take the plea?
The Court (Judge): Before you do so, however, I must advise the defendant, under section 1192.5 of the penal code, that the approval of the court to the plea is not binding to the court; that the court may, at the time set for hearing on the application for probation or pronouncement or judgment, withdraw it’s approval, in light of further consideration of the matter; and three, in such case, the defendant will be able to withdraw his plea, if he desires to do so.
Now Mr. Polanski – and the court will also make a finding at this time that the plea was freely and voluntarily made, and that there is a factual basis for it.
You may now proceed to take the plea.
Gunson: Mr. Polanski to Court III if indictment number A-334139, which charges you with the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse on March 10, 1977, a felony, how do you plead?
Defendant (Polanski): Guilty.
Gunson: Your Honor, does the Court make a finding that Mr. Polanski knew and understood his constitutional rights?
The Court: I have made such a finding.
Gunson: And does the Court also make a finding that Mr. Polanski knows of the consequences of his plea?
Defendant: Yes.
Court: Yes.
Skipping ahead to page 17, line 10 of the transcript.
In as much as the defendant has been convicted of a felony sex offense involving a child under the age of 14 years–namely, unlawful sexual intercourse in violation of section 261.5 of the penal code, by plea of guilty on this date, August 18, 1977--it is therefor the order of the Court that criminal proceeding be adjourned.
So Techman et al, Polanski and his lawyer were specifically legally aware that the judge/court had every right under the California penal legal regulations to reject the plea in the end despite any plea agreement. So all of your insistence that there was a trick or betrayal by the judge, or that Polanski was in any way justified ethically or morally, as regards clear legal procedure, to run is totally invalid.
You may say the penal code regulations suck. Your opinion may still be that he had every right to run in your personal view of ethics and morality, and I may even agree with you to some extent that I don't think the court should be able to change a plea agreement everyone including the court agreed to. But
legally the court did nothing unethical or immoral, and technically according to THE plea agreement Polanski and his lawyer accepted under oath, Polanski is a convicted felon...and therefor...a fugitive. These are the legal facts. Period!
The transcript is definitive on all of these points
Cheers,
Merlot
PS
