home

Roman Polanski Loses First Bid for Release

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:04:15 AM EST
Tags: Roman Polanski (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Roman Polanski has lost his first bid for bail in Switzerland. Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman Folbco Galli said Polanski was too great a flight risk.

Polanski is also seeking release from Switzerland's highest criminal court.

Regardless of the court decision, Polanski will likely have to remain in prison for months as his case in the Swiss courts progresses. The Federal Criminal Court has said it will rule in the case in the "next weeks," and a verdict in either direction can be appealed to the country's highest judicial body, the Federal Tribunal.

< Ohio Governor Halts Two More Executions | U.S. Won't Seek Death Penalty Against Embassy Bombing Defendant >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Roman Polanski Loses First Bid for Release | 54 comments (54 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    If Polanski were to be (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by me only on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:09:52 AM EST
    sent to the US and sentenced to, let's pretend it is 6 months, does the time served in Switzerland count against those six months?

    Polanski failed to pay the $500k settlement (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 02:55:28 PM EST
    Today's AP story notes that "Polanski and the victim reached a $500,000 settlement in October 1993".

    However, the current AP story neglects to include salient information from a prior Oct 3/09 AP story about the settlement:

    The terms of the settlement were confidential, but the amount was disclosed in court documents because of a two-year struggle to get Polanski to pay.

    In a December 1995 filing, Silver [the victim's attorney] said "defendant has failed to pay any part of the sum due or the interest due on the attached note." Silver added that he talked to Finkle [Polanski's attorney], who agreed Polanski was in default.

    Silver then sought some of Polanski's earnings by canvassing Hollywood for his wages.

    The last court filing in August 1996 shows Polanski owed Geimer $604,416.22, including interest

    If Polanski hasn't paid over the past 14 years, it's unclear if he would have to pay interest. The court documents state he'd owe $128.42 per day, for a total of about $650,000.

    Does any of the foregoing have any bearing on the other proceedings at hand?

    Parent

    Like I said down thread, to be fair, (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 03:03:16 PM EST
    we do know for sure that in 1996 he hadn't paid what he agreed to in the 1993 settlement, but we don't know for sure whether or not he's paid since that date...

    Parent
    To be fair, I didn't say otherwise (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 03:12:13 PM EST
    Nevertheless, thanks for raising the issue. The default story tends to get side-lined for some reason.

    Parent
    Fair enough, your title threw me... (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 03:20:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, he does have to pay statutory interest. (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 03:18:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Is that the only penalty for default? (none / 0) (#42)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:15:20 PM EST
    BTW, how is "statutory interest" calculated?

    Parent
    I may have misspoke. If the debt is a (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:52:51 PM EST
    signature not, I suppose the interest rate is controlled by what is in the note.  I was thinking of a judgment in a civil case, in which case the statute (California Civil Code of CA Code of Civil Procedure) controls the interest rate and how it accrues.  I can't find the statute right now.

    Parent
    More (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:12:43 AM EST
    From the LA Times:

    His supporters have questioned the timing of the arrest, noting Polanski has been to Switzerland many times and even has a chalet at a Swiss resort.

    But Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf insisted authorities never knew Polanski traveled to Switzerland -- until L.A. prosecutors informed them Polanski planned to attend the festival.

    "This time, we knew that he would be coming. After all, the organizers of the Zurich Film Festival had actively made it known," Widmer-Schlumpf told the Swiss newspaper SonntagsZeitung.

    "Switzerland is a constitutional state, and Mr. Polanski should always have counted on being disturbed on his earlier stays as well," Widmer-Schlumpf said.  "The arrest of Mr. Polanski has been sought worldwide by Interpol since 2005. If he comes to Switzerland, we are duty bound to fulfill the arrest as a treaty partner of the United States."
    Based on his flight from the U.S., (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:15:40 AM EST
    I would have been surprised if the Swiss had granted bail.

    Well whatever else one can say about this case (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Faust on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:22:12 AM EST
    RP being a flight risk seems a fair assessment.

    He may be a flight risk (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:32:08 AM EST
    but he does have a home in Switzerland. He could hire a private security company to enforce home arrest -- similar to the conditions imposed on Bernie Madoff at his Park Ave. apartment when he was granted bail.

    Isn't every fugitive a flight risk? If that's the only issue, why isn't bail prohibited in all instances by law?

    Parent

    But (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:43:12 AM EST
    Not every fugitive is a rich Hollywood producer with homes and citizenship in several countries.

    And this is Switzerland - not constrained by US bail procedures.

    Further - why should he get the benefit of living in his home in Switzerland?  Why does everyone want to make excuses for him and want to see to his comfort needs?

    Parent

    How many excuses... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:57:46 PM EST
    will you make for justice system shadyness in order to "make him pay" jb?

    Polanski has never been the issue, at least for me, how the system is dealt and is dealing with Polanski is the issue...and the system failed and continues to fail.

    I sure hope "making him pay" is worth it...

    Parent

    Pretty hard to figure out how you and (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    others make the leap from a felony plea of guilty, followed by failure to appear at sentencing, to let's diss the entire U.S. justice system.  

    Parent
    As I understand it... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:17:06 PM EST
    a plea because of a deal that was gonna get pulled...aka a sandbag job.  Only a moron would show up to get sandbagged.

    Parent
    As opposed to (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by cawaltz on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:38:18 PM EST
    fleeing which will probably end up costing him more than 90 days and deportation. Personally, my position is only a moron would have contested 90 days for having sex with a 13 year old (which is what he pleaded to.)

    Parent
    Purely speculation (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 02:09:17 PM EST
    Since he didn't show up for sentencing, no one can swear to what was going to actually happen.

    I read a few days ago that Polanski also failed to pay the restitution he agreed to pay to the victim. He doesn't seem to have a strong sense of ethics, but I didn't read what his excuse was for not paying.

    Parent

    Well, to be fair, as much as I think (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 02:17:03 PM EST
    the guy's a complete piker, all we really know is that according to court records in 1996 he hadn't paid any of the settlement he had agreed in 1993 to pay by sometime in 1995.

    There seems to be no court involvement and therefor no court documentation as to whether or not he did pay the settlement anytime after those 1996 court records.

    Parent

    If I remember correctly (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 02:20:48 PM EST
    the information that he hadn't paid came from his victim...recently.


    Parent
    I'd love to see that. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 02:28:44 PM EST
    Here's the latest I could find:
    Polanski agreed to $500,000 payment in civil suit

    The Associated Press

    10:31 a.m. EDT, October 5, 2009
    E-mail Print Share  Text Size

    LOS ANGELES - Film director Roman Polanski agreed to pay his sexual assault victim $500,000 to settle a lawsuit 15 years after he fled the United States, according to court documents.

    Polanski and the victim, Samantha Geimer, reached the deal in October 1993. The terms of the settlement were confidential, but the amount was disclosed in court documents because of a two-year struggle to get Polanski to pay.

    Court records, which were provided to media outlets Friday, do not indicate if Polanski ever paid. The last court filing in August 1996 shows Polanski, now 76, owed Geimer $604,416.22, including interest.

    Polanski's attorney, David Finkle, said he couldn't remember details of the case and declined comment.

    "It's ancient," Finkle said.

    A phone message left for Geimer's attorney, Lawrence Silver, wasn't immediately returned. Geimer and her family also have not returned calls this week seeking comment.



    Parent
    I don't know. If I were facing max of 20 years (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 02:16:01 PM EST
    for violating PC 261.5 as a felony and it looked like I was going to skate with 90 days custody, don't think I would have bolted before sentencing.  He will languish in custody in Switzerland longer than that, unless he comes to his senses and decides not to fight extradition.  Give it up man.  It's over.

    Parent
    How did the system fail? (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:18:26 PM EST
    Besides failing the victim?  Polanski took off because he heard the judge might make him spend another 42 days in a psych ward.  Please tell me how the system failed him.

    Parent
    Kdog what do you mean? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:03:29 PM EST
    Regarding Polanski you said:
    I sure hope "making him pay" is worth it...
    Are you talking about his default on the $500k settlement and/or something else? At the very least, I'm sure paying the settlement is "worth" something to his victim.

    Parent
    Hey now (none / 0) (#17)
    by Faust on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 12:04:52 PM EST
    "everyone" making excuses for him. Absurd. There are plenty of people who would be more than happy to exercise vigilante justice on the guy.


    Parent
    "Everyone" (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:16:52 PM EST
    Who wants to defend this guy make excuses for him and want him to comfortable.

    My apologies for the sweeping generalizations.

    Parent

    It is coming (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by JamesTX on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:42:52 PM EST
    out now that support for him in Hollywood is practically nonexistent -- a complete fabrication of the alarmist press. Polanski has almost no defenders, nobody who can see any point of view other than the "pile on" mentality enforced in the United States on any issues related to sex and minors.

    But if you are looking for someone to set the dogs on -- someone who dares question the prevailing norm of presumption of guilt and attitudes of insane, maniacal retribution -- someone to signal the mob to pile on -- that would be me.

    I am willing to defend him, to consider circumstances. I refuse to accept the automatic assumption that the grand jury testimony is 100% valid. I clearly recognize that he didn't plead guilty to the grand jury testimony, and it was never proven. I am willing to entertain that he plead guilty for no reason other than to have it over with. Everyone knows our system is full of innocent or minimally culpable people who plead to charges which have minimal consequences simply to be done with it. The system encourages, nay, demands, such behavior. That is how prosecutorial misconduct is kept covered, and how the fact that courts often get it wrong is kept covered. We live in that kind of world. It is easier to swallow pride and live free than to fight a system that can't and won't admit its faults. Sometimes it is easier to let them have their way without a fight, if the cost is not too high. If that were his reason, then the fact that the judge threatened to go back on the promise to honor the plea agreement would make his flight quite understandable.

    Parent

    Personally (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:02:54 AM EST
    it has always bothered me when the justice system affords perks to rich folks that aren't available to poor folks.  Now of course, some of that inequality is unavoidable when it comes to the notion of posting bail, but I don't think we need to go making it worse.  You shouldn't be able to purchase yourself a nicer cell, and allowing house arrest as an option for those who can afford a private security company is essentially the same thing.

    Conditions in many of our prisons and jails are intolerable (dunno about Switzerland) but that doesn't mean we should determine who has to spend time there based upon personal resources.  Heck, lock up a few rich folks and maybe they'll start to see the importance of allocating resources towards making prison conditions acceptably humane.

    Parent

    In Mexican prisons it is common for (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:56:40 AM EST
    those with more resources to fit out their place of confinement with lots of goodies.  

    Parent
    He doesn't live in Switzerland, He's citizen of (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ding7777 on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:44:31 AM EST
    France and was protected in France by the country's limited extradition with the U.S.  So yes, he is indeed a filght risk.

    Parent
    Did Madoff FTA and then request bail? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:52:33 AM EST


    Parent
    Well, first of all... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 02:29:43 PM EST
    ... unlike the majority of bail cases, he's already been convicted. Secondly, he has substantial resources, including a home in a country that refuses to extradite him. Third, he has a thirty year history of flight.

    So I'd say he's not just a run-of-the-mill flight risk.

    Parent

    Jeralyn, further to your comment... (none / 0) (#50)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:09:46 PM EST
    You said:
    Isn't every fugitive a flight risk? If that's the only issue, why isn't bail prohibited in all instances by law?

    Question: in fugitive/flight risk cases, is bail generally refused more often than not? Or is Polanski in the minority here?

    Parent

    slightly OT (none / 0) (#55)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 04:59:48 AM EST
    but why is it "Bernie" Madoff - instead of Bernard?
    "Bernie" is sort of warm and fuzzy - Uncle Bernie.
    Not like "Bernard" who intentionally ruined peoples' lives.

    Parent
    Did Polanski know of treaty (none / 0) (#1)
    by Saul on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:08:13 AM EST
    between U.S and Switzerland?  If he did why did he go to Switzerland and risk the arrest?

    He owns a home in Switzerland. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:51:05 AM EST
    And he believes he is invincible?

    Parent
    Ego. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:55:14 AM EST
    Polanski, the Oscar-winning director of such classic films as "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby," was taken into custody Sept. 26 in Zurich, where he had gone to accept a lifetime achievement award at a film festival.


    Parent
    I wonder if (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:38:31 AM EST
    he won't now agree to come back in exchange for the imposition of the original sentence recommended by the probation department, time served, with the time he spent in the Swiss jail being counted as time served for his failure to appear at sentencing. He's never been charged with a separate crime for jumping bond or fleeing. Maybe CA would agree not to file that charge -- or maybe the statute of limitations has run on them bringing it now. In exchange, he'd drop his motion to dismiss the case.

    He still has the same problem as before. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:58:11 AM EST
    He can accept the plea bargain, which binds him and the DA's office, but not the LA County Superior Court sentencing judge.

    Parent
    Why in the world (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 04:55:42 AM EST
    would California choose not to charge Polanski with jumping bond and fleeing?

    You would know better than I, but it seems to me that it is not uncommon for fugitives to have been located decades after their flight, brought back for trial with the additional charge of illegal flight added to the docket.

    Parent

    His time in Swiss jail (3.66 / 3) (#23)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:35:08 PM EST

    His time in Swiss jail is completely due to his own choosing.  The Swiss would certainly put him on a plane to the US tomorrow if he so requested.  That time should count for nothing.

    Parent
    The irony may be (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cawaltz on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:40:50 PM EST
    that when this all plays out he ends with MORE than the 90 days he initially was supposedly being "sandbagged" with.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#54)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 04:57:00 AM EST
    then the question arises: a 90 day sentence for the intentional rape of a thirteen year old?

    Parent
    And if they sent him to the US (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:44:38 PM EST
    he'd be in jail in the US, no?  He's not making a choice to be incarcerated, he's merely making a choice of where.

    Parent
    As far as the SOL is concerned (none / 0) (#10)
    by magster on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 11:03:25 AM EST
    isn't unlawful flight something that renews every day he doesn't turn himself in.

    As for the rest, if Polanski stays behind bars for another month or two, I would bet that would be the end of it too.

    Parent

    I think it is probably time (none / 0) (#22)
    by eric on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:28:11 PM EST
    for France to step up the pressure.  Surely Switzerland doesn't want an investigation, for example, of all that art that somehow wound up in their hands in the early 1940's.

    France drops support for Polanski (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:53:48 PM EST
    France drops support for Polanski

    Posted Thu Oct 1, 2009 7:43am AEST

    The French government has dropped its public support for Roman Polanski, saying the Oscar-winning director held in Switzerland over a three-decade-old child sex case is not "above the law."

    "Roman Polanski is neither above nor beneath the law," government spokesman Luc Chatel said.

    "We have a judicial procedure under way for a serious affair - the rape of a minor - on which the American and Swiss legal systems are doing their job," he said, adding: "One can understand the emotion that this belated arrest, more than 30 years after the incident, and the method of the arrest have caused."



    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 02:05:58 PM EST
    Opinion polling suggested that the public did not share the views of the ministers who opined that this was evidence of the scary side of America, etc.

    Parent
    In my view (none / 0) (#46)
    by eric on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:43:41 PM EST
    it just would tend to show that there is a scary part of France, too.

    Parent
    If you say so (none / 0) (#52)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 08:57:11 PM EST
    A scary majority of France, even.  But I'm pretty sure the implication was that the USA is uniquely scary in this regard.

    Parent
    That is an amazing segue! (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 02:17:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Eric, I'm assuming your comment isn't OT, so (none / 0) (#38)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 03:08:59 PM EST
    I'll ask a follow up question. Specifically, what "art wound up in their [Swiss] hands in the early 1940's".

    How much of it do the Swiss still have?

    I make my living in the arts and I have a vested interested in the subject, so to speak.
     

    Parent

    Well I was thinking (none / 0) (#45)
    by eric on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:41:59 PM EST
    of the art stolen by the Nazis that is still in Switzerland.  For example, like that mentioned HERE.

    And yes, the comment was on topic because I thought that maybe France might want to exert some leverage on the Swiss.  However, as somebody pointed out above, apparently France is backing off.

    Parent

    Thanks eric. I'm aware of the wholesale (none / 0) (#48)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:57:35 PM EST
    theft of artworks throughout Europe during WW11. I was just wondering what particular artworks the Swiss are still hoarding. On to the google.

    Parent
    Roman Polanski Loses First Bid for Release | 54 comments (54 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment