The California Court of Appeal rejected it, but expressed concern about judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in the original prosecution:
In another chapter of what surely must be one of the longest-running sagas in California criminal justice history, Roman Polanski, a fugitive since 1978, asked the trial court to exercise its discretionary authority to dismiss the criminal prosecution against him that has been pending since 1977. The trial court declined to consider Polanski’s request until Polanski submitted to the court’s jurisdiction by returning to the United States and appearing in court. Polanski asks this court to compel the trial court to dismiss the action or, at least, to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Polanski’s request. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine and refusing to consider dismissing the action. In so doing, we do not disregard the extremely serious allegations of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct that have been brought forward, but urge the parties to take steps to investigate and to respond to the claims….Although there is no basis for extraordinary relief here — Polanski retains remedies in the ordinary course of the law, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the disentitlement doctrine to deny Polanski the opportunity to seek relief — we remain deeply concerned that these allegations of misconduct have not been addressed by a court equipped to take evidence and make factual determinations as to the events in 1977 and 1978. Fundamental fairness and justice in our criminal justice system are far more important than the conviction and sentence of any one individual. “[F]or my part I think it a less evil that some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part.” (Olmstead v. United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438, 470 (dis. opn. of Holmes, J.).)
Polanski’s allegations urgently require full exploration and then, if indicated, curative action for the abuses alleged here. Time continues to pass, and the delay in addressing this matter has already removed one participant from the ranks of available witnesses for an evidentiary hearing on the judicial and prosecutorial misdeeds that have been alleged here. The passage of more time before this case’s final resolution will further hamper the search for truth and the delivery of any appropriate relief, and it will also prolong the agony that the lack of finality in this matter continues to cause Samantha Geimer. We exhort all participants in this extended drama to place the integrity of the criminal justice system above the desire to punish any one individual, whether for his offense or for his flight. As Justice Murphy wrote in dissent in Eisler, supra, 338 U.S. at pages 194 and 195, “Our country takes pride in requiring of its institutions the examination and correction of alleged injustice whenever it occurs. We should not permit an affront of this sort to distract us from the performance of our constitutional duties.” We encourage all participating parties to do their utmost to ensure that this matter now draws to a close in a manner that fully addresses the issues of due process and fundamental fairness raised by the events of long ago.
Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer.
Mark N. says:
That opinion’s recitation of the record and the allegations, counter-allegations, etc. is probably the most comprehensive explanation of the case I’ve seen so far; thanks for the link.
December 21, 2009, 5:04 pmShelbyC says:
The fugitive disentitlement doctrine is kind of problematic; the court should make sure it’s not screwing you over before it requires you to submit to it’s jurisdiction.
December 21, 2009, 5:32 pmMalvolio says:
In theory. Forcing someone to attend to a legal matter is something of a punishment in itself (there’s a saying about getting arrested: “You can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride”), but this sort of case — a person who has pleaded guilty to a very serious crime to avoid being charged with an even-more serious one and who then unlawfully fled the jurisdiction — is exactly what the doctrine was designed for.
December 21, 2009, 5:51 pmHouston Lawyer says:
Cry me a river. The fugitive disentitlement doctrine appears sound. No one should have standing who doesn’t submit to the jurisdiction of the court.
December 21, 2009, 5:54 pmTwirip says:
I never understand why dissenting (i.e. losing) opinions are treated as defining the basic purpose of the law.
December 21, 2009, 6:24 pmMark N. says:
In this case though, the way the dissenters would have disposed of the case was later adopted by the Court, when in 1967 it overturned Olmstead through Katz. That doesn’t quite make the Holmes dissent law, but it’s closer than if it were an opinion dissenting from a case that were still good law.
December 21, 2009, 6:30 pmRichard Nieporent says:
Well if all else fails he can always buy a pardon as Mark Rich did.
December 21, 2009, 7:18 pmAnderson says:
Quick, summon the waaaaaahmbulance for Polanski.
Funny how these claims of judicial misconduct become so much more worthwhile to pursue AFTER the judge is dead.
December 21, 2009, 7:44 pmAnderson says:
Mr. Nieporent, from whom would Polanski purchase said pardon, for his STATE-law offense?
December 21, 2009, 7:45 pmbrentpeterson01 says:
Uh…did you read the court’s opinion? The claims of judicial misconduct were made within two weeks of Polanski’s flight in 1978. Polanski’s attorney filed a statement for disqualification for cause.
Whatever one thinks of Polanski, it seems pretty clear that blatant judicial misconduct occurred. To think otherwise is to believe that Polanski’s attorney and the prosecutor are engaged in a conspiracy to discredit the judge.
December 21, 2009, 7:53 pmMark Field says:
Where was this panel in 1990 (Doe v. Superior Court, 222 Cal.App.3d 1406, 272 Cal.Rptr. 474)?
December 21, 2009, 8:14 pmRichard Nieporent says:
Mr. Nieporent, from whom would Polanski purchase said pardon, for his STATE-law offense?
How about Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
December 21, 2009, 8:24 pmU.Va. Grad says:
Mark Field:
IMO, the Doe court is correct to note that Polanski wasn’t seeking affirmative relief, as he is with his current quest to get his conviction set aside:
The Polanksi court also notes this distinction when finding that Doe is inapplicable.
December 21, 2009, 8:30 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Roman Polanski’s Attempt to Get Case Against Him Dismissed -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eugene Volokh, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Roman Polanski’s Attempt to Get Case Against Him Dismissed: The California Court of Appeal rejected it, but exp.. http://bit.ly/8tHOMI [...]
December 21, 2009, 8:58 pmAnderson says:
Much of this alleged misconduct never came out until years later, and the trial court apparently was contemplating the horrific sentence of 48 days in prison followed by deportation. On the facts, that was a sweetheart of a deal.
As the present opinion states, “Polanski could have availed himself of mechanisms for raising his allegations of judicial misconduct short of being disrespectful of the entire judicial process by fleeing.” If those allegations had been worth much, he didn’t need to flee the country.
More specfically: “Polanski knew about all this judicial conduct at the time of his flight, but did not seek dismissal of the prosecution for more than 30 years.” THAT’S what I mean by “waiting till the judge is dead.”
December 21, 2009, 9:13 pmwm13 says:
I had not heard that governors generally, or California governors in particular, were less corrupt than slick Willie (himself a former governor). With all of bien-pensant Hollywood behind him, plus a considerable wad of cash, I am sure Mr. Polanski can buy whatever he needs from a Democratic politician in the near future.
December 21, 2009, 9:29 pmAnderson says:
With all of bien-pensant Hollywood behind him, plus a considerable wad of cash, I am sure Mr. Polanski can buy whatever he needs from a Democratic politician in the near future.
Somehow, this solution escaped his mind during the terms of various Democratic governors.
I’m giving this subthread only a 3 out of 10 on “Atopical Invocation of Bill Clinton’s Faults.” I’ve seen a lot better.
December 21, 2009, 9:32 pmRoman Polanski’s Attempt to Get Case Against Him Dismissed | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] this article: Roman Polanski’s Attempt to Get Case Against Him Dismissed Share this [...]
December 21, 2009, 9:39 pmBob from Ohio says:
Misconduct? I must be missing something.
He plead guilty. The judge had a right to send him to Chino even though his motive may not have been strictly kosher. Before sentencing he fled.
Upon the filing of an affidavit of prejudice, the evil judge voluntarily recused himself. If Polanski had shown up a different judge would have sentenced him so the evil judge would not have been involved.
How was Polanski harmed by the “misconduct?
December 21, 2009, 9:53 pmMark Field says:
IMO, it’s pretty hard to claim that defendants are never “seeking affirmative relief”. They ask, for example, that the court enter a judgment in their favor; they may attack the pleadings; they move to compel; they may move for summary judgment; etc. There are myriad ways in which a defendant asks the court for “affirmative relief”.
Of course, I may be biased on this issue.
December 21, 2009, 10:33 pmawjeeznotthisagain says:
I’m sensing that they are looking for a way to let him out of trouble. If they can do it by invoking sanctimonious claptrap (“better than 100 go free . . .”), that much the better. Maybe the rest of the world will then decide, Sally Field-like, that they like us- they really, really like us.
December 21, 2009, 10:42 pmJ. Aldridge says:
Polanski is a fugitive and should be treated and sentenced as such on top of being a child rapist.
December 21, 2009, 11:41 pmKazinski says:
The misconduct in this case was the judge orchestrating the sentencing hearing so it wouldn’t look like he was treating Polanski with kid gloves, while he was treating Polanski with kid gloves. Polanski was not being screwed over, he was getting a sweetheart deal.
December 21, 2009, 11:44 pmDavid Schwartz says:
Kazinski: That’s how it started out, but it appears the judge had a change of heart due to public pressure. This is after the judge had already started orchestrating the sweetheart deal.
December 22, 2009, 2:40 amMark says:
The state should drop this case. Polanski’s victim has stated that she does not want him criminally prosecuted and she has accepted a cash settlement already. This case should be closed IMHO.
December 22, 2009, 4:49 amAnderson says:
The state should drop this case. Polanski’s victim has stated that she does not want him criminally prosecuted and she has accepted a cash settlement already.
The case is People v. Polanski, not Geimer v. Polanski. The state has little interest in creating incentives for rapists to flee justice until their once-youthful victims have tired of the court system.
December 22, 2009, 6:08 amMartinned says:
Why not? Surely having them flee is cheaper and at the same time safer than locking them up for a while and then releasing them? Polanski hasn’t been a threat to any kids in the US for over 30 years, at virtually zero cost to the state.
BTW, I remember having this conversation in several past threads, how the prosecutor’s job is to sue for a breach of “the king’s peace”, as distinct from the harm done to the victim, for which we have the civil torts system. I seem to recall I never really got anywhere.
December 22, 2009, 8:03 amAnderson says:
Why not? Surely having them flee is cheaper and at the same time safer than locking them up for a while and then releasing them?
You lose a little something on deterrence value.
December 22, 2009, 8:57 amsk says:
Yes, its a sordid case , even today, and an odd read (for a non-lawyer).
Because, as someone earlier mentioned, the misconduct of the judge is not that he was lying to convict Polanski unjustly: he was lying to give him a sweetheart deal that he either had second thoughts about or that Polanski didn’t respect adequately.
And this current court of appeals judgement: is it common to inject the personal opinions of the judges into the text of a decision? To repeat: judicial concerns about procedural misconduct seem appropriate, but in this case, the procedural misconduct revolved around a sweetheart deal given to a famous celebrity that went sour. I’m not sure how “issues of fundamental fairness and due process” apply to backdoor deals for rich people.
Sk
December 22, 2009, 9:00 amChrisHo says:
So if she accepts a cash payment does it become prostitution? Regardless if it does, he would still be guilty of sex with a minor. I find the whole idea that the very wealthy could simply buy off their guilt. Why not remove the victim entirely and just pay a fee to the state? Who needs a Pope
December 22, 2009, 9:02 amAssistant Village Idiot says:
sk – warning sirens go off when the phrase “fundamental fairness” is used. It is a useful concept and avoids some injustice. But it can also be a screen to shield an empty argument.
December 22, 2009, 9:37 amAnderson says:
Is that a bit like “public policy,” AVI?
December 22, 2009, 10:33 amDavid Nieporent says:
Surely not prosecuting someone is always cheaper than prosecuting him, ceteris paribus. But he hasn’t yet been punished for his crime.
December 22, 2009, 11:17 amShelbyC says:
Well, the court should determine that and take away his excuse to stay a fugitive. And if somebody is being screwed over (and I don’t think Polanski is) I have no problem with them remaining a fugitive.
December 22, 2009, 11:22 amMartinned says:
Well, he’s been exiled.
December 22, 2009, 12:03 pmBut my point was that if the goal is to keep America’s children safe, exiling pedophiles rather than locking them up is cheaper, so it is not clear why the state should have an interest in discouraging people from fleeing the jurisdiction.
Mark Field says:
I don’t see that as what they did. They were pointing out a possible solution to the case that nobody else had thought of. In order to do that, they took the facts in the record as true. If those facts are true, then (the court said) there’s a basis for the lower court to act.
I hardly think it’s right to discourage crime victims from civil relief against criminals by stigmatizing them this way.
December 22, 2009, 12:12 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Polanski’s not an American; he’s French. He hasn’t been “exiled” any more than Vladimir Putin has been. He’s been living at home.
Well, your “if” is misplaced to begin with; punishment is its own justification, not merely a means for incapacitation or deterrence.
But in any case, your approach protects the state’s children from that particular pedophile; it hardly provides a significant deterrent effect to other pedophiles. (“You can commit whatever crimes you want, and avoid jail simply by leaving.”)
December 22, 2009, 12:44 pmvernon willis says:
While I personally strongly agree with the position that Roman Polanski is a scumbag who belongs in prison, I have to admit that if the appeals court did, as they said, find credible evidence that his right to due process was violated, they made the right call. All the Polanski apologists who’ve been prattling on about how the U.S. is such an unjust, draconian place where poor, persecuted Roman could never receive justice can shut their pie holes now. As we see here, American justice may not be perfect but it’s as good as anything out there.It not only protects the rights of the innocent,it also protects the right of guilty as hell scumbags like Roman Polanski.
December 22, 2009, 12:57 pmMartinned says:
As I understand it, he was living in the US at the time. If my recollection is correct, he was indeed exiled.
That’s right. But that conclusion only follows after a discussion of the goals of criminal punishment, it isn’t self-evident. (And, for the record, pedophiles aren’t generally known for their rational decision making, for equating costs and benefits at the margin.)
December 22, 2009, 1:03 pmShelbyC says:
It’s pretty self-evident that one of the goals of criminal punishment it to deter crime by imposing unpleasant consequences on criminal behavior.
December 22, 2009, 1:14 pmluagha says:
We’ll never know what Roman Polanski’s sentence would have been, because he fled before it was set down. All we have are rumors and suspicions.
The big problem here is that Roman Polanski doesn’t know a darned thing about film. When you’re wrongfully accused of a crime, after you escape from the police you have to go out on a rampage against the underworld in order to bring the true villain to justice and clear your name. He’s neglected this simple, basic step.
December 22, 2009, 1:49 pmMartinned says:
It looks like you have Roman Polanski confused with Michael Bay.
December 22, 2009, 1:56 pmChris Travers says:
Not sure. It was the whole core of the medieval Icelandic system of justice.
December 22, 2009, 2:12 pmPintler says:
If, hypothetically speaking, you had a daughter who had been molested, you would advocate allowing the perpetrator to permanently emigrate rather than impose the costs of incarceration on your fellow taxpayers?
I take my hat off; very few people are that altruistic.
December 22, 2009, 7:40 pmSolon says:
It is problematic that there appears
to be a concerted effort to let him go free.
True-true independent as the Medical People say.
Assuming there was misconduct–can this not be
dealt with, without giving the serial molester Roman a “free pass”?
Is this an S.O.L issue?
Subsequent to this incident–Roman waxed about his romance with Natasha Kinski-at
the time she was ripe age of 13.
The LA TIMES noted that similar charges resulted in sentences averaging over a year.
December 23, 2009, 12:44 amInjustice–yes, in his original sweetheart deal and this tendentious ruling.
Jeff Norman says:
From Polanski’s plea hearing:
MR. GUNSON: What is the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse?
THE DEFENDANT: It’s one to fifteen – – twenty years in State Prison.
Nobody corrected Polanski when he said he believed the maximum sentence was 20 years, even though it was actually 50 years. Therefore, the plea isn’t valid and the Court’s approval of it should be withdrawn, because a defendant who pleads guilty must understand the potential consequences of the plea.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-norman/polanski-guilty-plea-coul_b_386007.html
December 23, 2009, 10:20 pm