LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – A Los Angeles judge on Thursday formally rejected an attempt by fugitive film director Roman Polanski to have a 1978 sex case against him dismissed because of misconduct by prosecutors.
What in the Heck is that??? Who was the original person involved here that was the one involved in MISCONDUCT??
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza said he could not consider the case unless Polanski, who fled the United States for France after pleading guilty to rape, showed up in his court. Sure come on back here Roman! Just stay in France!
Lawyers for the Oscar-winning director made clear this week that Polanski would not return to the United States to contest his conviction in person because he would be immediately arrested. He cannot be extradited from France.
The lawyers have said they will appeal Espinoza's ruling on constitutional grounds, (which are???) alleging that misconduct by the original prosecutors and the judge had deprived Polanski of his right to a fair hearing.
Polanski had sought to have his 1978 guilty plea to having sex with a 13-year-old girl thrown out on the grounds that the judge at the time was improperly coached by a prosecutor. Who pleaded GUILTY? DUH
Espinoza said in February that there was "substantial misconduct" in the original case against Polanski and gave him until May 7 to turn up in his court to pursue the matter. Polanski did not appear. Of course not....
Polanski fled to France in the 1970s because he was convinced the judge in the case intended to send him to prison despite a plea agreement with prosecutors.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza said he could not consider the case unless Polanski, who fled the United States for France after pleading guilty to rape, showed up in his court. Sure come on back here Roman! Just stay in France!
Lawyers for the Oscar-winning director made clear this week that Polanski would not return to the United States to contest his conviction in person because he would be immediately arrested. He cannot be extradited from France.
The lawyers have said they will appeal Espinoza's ruling on constitutional grounds, (which are???) alleging that misconduct by the original prosecutors and the judge had deprived Polanski of his right to a fair hearing.
Polanski had sought to have his 1978 guilty plea to having sex with a 13-year-old girl thrown out on the grounds that the judge at the time was improperly coached by a prosecutor. Who pleaded GUILTY? DUH
Espinoza said in February that there was "substantial misconduct" in the original case against Polanski and gave him until May 7 to turn up in his court to pursue the matter. Polanski did not appear. Of course not....
Polanski fled to France in the 1970s because he was convinced the judge in the case intended to send him to prison despite a plea agreement with prosecutors.
Anyone else would have expected a prison term for child molestation...
He has never set foot on U.S. soil since his flight to France, (nor has he been missed) Once less child molester to monitor the better...
5 comments:
nice and good articles
The audacity of this "film maker" thinking he can finagle his way back to the US after all these years is positively insane. Stay where you are Roman! Come back here and be in prison then maybe you can make a movie about Roman's life in GEN POP!
Thanks for the comment!
I have to disagree just this once. I hate child molesters too but the victim has since filed to have this dismissed. It was 30 years ago and while it's not right, I don't think 30 years of exile is appropriate. If you watch his biography that he did you can see how the courts did things wrong and ruined the trial and case. He was wrong but I think the punishment has been enough for 30 years later and a victim who has forgiven him. :) Just my opinion.
Well put Karsun but he can in France...
nice and good articles
Post a Comment