Appeals court denies Roman Polanski's bid to throw out sex case

[Scurrilous]

Source: LA Times

<snip>

"A state appellate court has denied Roman Polanski's attempt to have his three-decade-old child sex case thrown out on the grounds of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.

In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal 2nd District said a lower court judge did not err a year ago when he ruled that the acclaimed director, then a fugitive in France, had to surrender to U.S. authorities before pursuing the misconduct claims.

Lawyers for Polanski, now under house arrest in Switzerland pending possible extradition to Los Angeles, had argued earlier this month that the "fugitive disentitlement doctrine" cited by Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza did not apply to the filmmaker because of the egregiousness of the misconduct alleged. But in a decision today, the justices disagreed.

"We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine and refusing to consider dismissing the action," Justice Laurie D. Zelon wrote."

Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/12/appeals-court-denies-roman-polanskis-bid-to-throw-out-sex-case.html

[slackmaster]

1. It's a RAPE case, not a sex case

:nuke:

[WriteDown]

3. I thought she was a hooker...

copious amounts of :sarcasm:

[Odin2005]

6. I caught that too, disgusting!

[tonysam]

7. NO, it's unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor

That is NOT legally rape, no matter what kind of spin you put on it.

[leftynyc]

8. You're right

It's worse.

[Flaneur]

9. Statutory rape is worse than rape? That's ridiculous.

[leftynyc]

25. Both involve non-consent

A child is unable to consent. I've seen the results of that kind of betrayal by an adult. It changes your life in ways you can't imagine.

[slackmaster]

12. Wrong - Because he dosed her with drugs and alcohol, one of the original charges is rape

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269

There was a plea bargain agreement that reduced the rape charge to unlawful intercourse with a minor (known in some states as "statutory rape"). However, because he fled the country before sentencing, all of the original charges still stand.

[blondeatlast]

21. Statutory rape is a strict liability crime anyway. Intent (or lack thereof)

doesn't matter.

[slackmaster]

27. The rape charge has not been dismissed

So he is still charged with rape, and it's quite clear from what is known about his actions that he raped the girl.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Did you miss him DRUGGING a 13 year old?

This wasn't even consensual sex with a minor. He drugged her up with a quaalude and champagne. Statutory rape AND date-rape. She's publicly forgiven him for it now, decades and a bunch of money later, but at the time, that was rape.

Rape. Period.

Stop making excuses for a monster who has SINCE stated he doesn't feel he did anything morally wrong. You should take a look at her testimony in court. It's pretty fucking awful what he did to her.

[blondeatlast]

18. Wrong==look up "strict liability." Oh, hell, here, strict liability defined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)

[JonQ]

22. Isn't that called statutory rape?

Also the whole drugging her thing would have made it rape regardless of her age.

[slackmaster]

28. He was charged with rape and worked out a plea bargain under which the rape charge would be dropped

It hasn't been dropped yet.

[MellowDem]

24. It was both...

sex with a minor and rape. He's got a twofer there.

[boppers]

26. Whoever gave you your legal degree, failed.

I'm guessing, however, you lack such a degree.

[Realityhack]

29. What a strange opinion.

Looking at the above posts it would appear to be factually demonstrably wrong as well.

[cmkramer]

32. No, it's a sex case

All the charges were dropped with the exception of the unlawful sex with a minor charge. There was no physical evidence to back up her Grand Jury testimony and as no one wanted her to testify, the chances of getting a conviction were probably very slim. BTW, Grand Jury testimony is not evidence. It is just one person's one-sided and uncorroborated version of events. The only thing it's intended to do is show why a case should go forward.

[WriteDown]

2. Unanimous?

I am truly surprised. Sad, that seeing justice in action is a surprise. Wonder what Gore Vidal's response will be.

[zbdent]

4. Wanna get out of it, Polanski?

Register Republican ... then all will be forgiven, and the media will be allowed to like your movies ...

[proteus_lives]

5. Good!

Here's to seeing the rapist Polanski in prison orange!

[tonysam]

10. I doubt it

The court didn't disregard Polanski's allegations of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.

[proteus_lives]

11. Ahh, a Polanski defender.

Which film of his made you decide it was ok for him to rape a 13 year-old girl?

[Flaneur]

13. A bit overboard, aren't you?

The poster you tried to slander merely stated that Polanski's allegations of judicial misconduct have yet to be adjudicated.

But I understand it is hard to think straight when juggling pitchforks and burning torches.

[depakid]

14. Actually, a defender of the Bill of Rights

and integrity of the criminal justice system- something which the fearful and punishment obsessed care very little about. Sort of like those quaint notions in the Geneva Conventions that those terra-ist supporters reminded folks about.

[WriteDown]

15. Gore Vidal, is that you? nt

[proteus_lives]

20. Geneva Conventions. Nice job shoe-horning that into the thread.

I have trouble taking you seriously given your previous comments on Polanski.

[Paladin]

17. Give It A Rest........ (n/t)

[proteus_lives]

19. No.

I'll stop when he's rotting in prison, where he belongs.

[Nye Bevan]

31. I agree. All Polanski did was to anally rape a 13 year old girl

after plying her with Qaaludes and champagne. What's the big deal? Why can't everyone just "give it a rest"?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

33. That was uncalled for. There was no "Polanski apologism" in that post. -nt

[JonQ]

23. Did the court not realize that he's a talented artist?

Why should he be held accountable for his crimes like a regular person?

:sarcasm:

[Nye Bevan]

30. Or that it may have been rape, but it wasn't "rape-rape"

as Whoopi Goldberg astutely pointed out?

[Flaneur]

34. The New Yorker has a nicely balanced and nuanced article on this case.

By Jeffrey Toobin.

It's much more thoughtful and enlightening than the dozens of flame war posts on DU. If anyone is actually interested in thinking about the case, I recommend it.