Should Roman Polanski be put on trial?

[LoZoccolo]

[mn9driver]

1. No. He pled guilty, and then fled. He should be in jail. nt

.

[damntexdem]

5. There are questions about the fairness of the first trial judge.

He should have a new trial.

[mn9driver]

12. The transcript of his guilty plea is up at Smokinggun

The court bent over backwards to make sure he understood what he was doing. There was no coercion. He acknowledged that he intentionally fed her alcohol, drugged her, raped her and sodomized her while she said "No!" These are his own words. He confessed. He fled. He belongs in jail.

[Hepburn]

20. The original plea agreement had a term of evaluation and that ..

... was met by Polanski ~~ the evauator stated that he was not to serve any jail time. The judge thereafter refused to approve the plea agreement between the defendant and the state.

So tell me why he should be put in jail when he followed all of the terms of the agreement and the judge decided that was not good enough.

BTW: This is purely a legal question and not in any manner an approval of child rape. What I am noting is that the entire criminal justice system operates on plea bargains. If a defendant 100% complies, what is the remedy thereafter? Everyone goes to trial? That would mean that the entire court system is gridlocked for all of eternity.

:shrug:

[leftynyc]

31. The judge is under no obligation

to agree to the plea. It's treated as a suggestion.

[Hepburn]

43. It's merely...

...a suggestion? It's a contract between the State and the Defendant which requires the judge to approve the same. But it is a hell of a lot more than a suggestion in that the rights of both sides are protected in a document signed by all involved.

Polanski, IMO, should have withdrawn the plea and demanded a trial with no waiver of time. It was not only wrong but sooooo freaking stupid to flee.

[leftynyc]

48. If the judge is not obligated - in any way

to accept the plea, it's nothing more than a suggestion. I have no sympathy for Polanski - any man in his 30's or 40's who thinks it is okay to have sex (read: rape) a 13 year old is a sick mother fucker who deserves to be locked up.

[Demeter]

2. He's Already Been Tried and Convicted

[Hepburn]

21. Wrong....

...he pled out on the basis of a plea agreement with the state. After he fulfilled all of the terms of the agreement, the judge refused to approve the same.

[berni_mccoy]

25. He is still convicted.

[Hepburn]

44. Yes, but a plea at the basis of a conviction can be withdrawn under...

...certain circumstances whereas one cannot withdraw a guilty verdict after a bench or jury trial. The latter are only appealable.

With the judge not approving the plea agreement ~~ especially after Polanski had complied with all the terms ~~ I would give at least an 85% chance of withdrawing the guilty plea.

JMHO

[ingac70]

3. He's already had a trial. n/t

[quiller4]

49. No. He didn't. He entered a plea after arraignment. No trial was conducted.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Kind of a meta-test to see how many people realize there's already a guilty plea?

[damntexdem]

7. A guilty plea in the face of unfair rulings by a judge.

He deserves a retrial.

[BlooInBloo]

8. "He deserves a retrial." - Not what the question was.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. Did the judge torture a confession out of him?

Unlike his victim Rapist Polanski was old enough and sober enough to know what was happening to him.

[Hepburn]

22. Yes, he knew per the terms of the plea agreement what was happening.

And he complied with any and all terms of the agreement which he made. The judge went sideways and refused to approve the terms of the agreement AFTER Polanski had done all that was required of him to do.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Plea deals are struck between prosecutors and perps...

...the judge (judicial branch) is independent of the prosecutor's office (executive branch). Prosecutors ask for plea deals to lighten their burden or get witnesses but judges need not accept plea deals. If they were obligated they would not be independent. Prosecutors can ask for lighter sentences as well but judges are not obligated to accept them.

Unless the implication is that Polanski has been factually innocent all this time and only pled guilty to make the best of a bad situation but no one--even Rapist Polanski--has ever maintained such a story.

[Hepburn]

34. That has not been my experience when I practiced...

...and I did so in California. It has always been rather rare that a judge would not approve a plea agreement. Where did you practice?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. I said a judge is not obligated to accept a deal.

And you affirmed that fact when you said it was rare for them to not accept a deal, ergo not all deals are accepted...

...including Rapist Polanski's.

[Hepburn]

46. It seems you are not here to rationally discuss issues...

...please just discuss facts and the law, OK?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. Judges, not accepting plea deals...

http://www.google.com/search?q=judge+rejects+plea+deal&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

...happens not infrequently it seems.

And it seems to happen quite a lot when the judge thinks the prosecutor is going a bit too easy on the defendent.

[quiller4]

50. It is so rare it makes headlines when it happens. Hasn't happend

in CA for decades. The last time a judge refected a plea deal in my state was in 1953.

[TheMadMonk]

42. No i think the implication is that the judge was about to impose a sentence...

...that was entirely out of proportion (for the time (and for this day for that matter)) to the crime he was convicted of/plead to.

As I understand it, he essentially agreed to cop to what was essentially a statuatory rape charge. On this the judge has no real discresion. It is the prosecutors perogative to determine on exactly what charge(s) the accused will be brought before the court.

The judge may refuse to accept the plea deal, forcing the case to proceed to trial, where it will be tried on it's merits, and where the acused's earlier guilty plea MAY NOT be used against him. A judge usually only goes down this particular path when he believes there may be prosecutorial misconduct, the accused is incompetent to plead, or the accused is making a false confession. This is largely irrelevant here, since the judge did in fact accept the guilty plea.

And he may refuse to impose a lighter sentence, but if he then imposes one that is grossly excessive he runs the risk of having that sentence reduced or even being overturned entirely on appeal. He also seriously pisses off the state, because, if it happens too often, he discourages accomplices from giving evidence against the main offender(s) and risks tying up the courts with cases that could otherwise be much more quickly resolved, not to mention the risk that an offfender will get off scott free on a silly technicality that otherwise would have gone untested.

This is a lot murkier, since absent statuatory limits on the sentence he may impose, his discression in sentencing is pretty much absolute.

[Hepburn]

Exactly....

...the judge cannot reinstate charges which the People have dropped and, yes, the case would proceed to trial ONLY on the charges which have not been dropped. In this case, one stat rape charge.

I totally agree on the sentencing issues as well. My office had 11 published Cal opinions on criminal defense and most were on sentencing issues ~~ several of them were Cal Sup cases. Some are considered classic case law in California on abuse in sentencing by trial court judges with adding enhancement penalties.

In Polanski's case, all that would have gone to trial is the stat rape case since the other charges were dropped. In regard to this, the State appointed evaluator ~~ whom the judge approved of ~~ recommended no jail time.

[tammywammy]

6. He already pled guilty.

:shrug:

[berni_mccoy]

27. And been convicted.

[tammywammy]

30. And I'm not sure fleeing would be a new trial and not just time added on. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

32. A conviction implies double jeopardy. I don't think he can be tried on the same crime again.

[tammywammy]

33. Of course

He doesn't get a new trial b/c he's already pled guilt and been convicted. I just don't know about the fleeing the country, if that's a trial or just added on.

[Captain Hilts]

9. He's committed another crime by fleeing. Yes. A new trial. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. New crimes do not abrogate old convictions.

[Captain Hilts]

14. No one said they did. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. OK, I think I'm on track now...

...I'm guessing you're suggesting a new trial for the fleeing the country whereas the old conviction for rape still stands?

[Captain Hilts]

18. Correct. nt

[Hepburn]

23. Nor do they enhance them. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. Actually, running from a conviction does add to the crime.

Not only has Rapist Polanski violently sodomoized a girl he drugged but he has thumbed his nose for 3 decades at the society that told him that violence against a woman and her body will not be accepted.

[Hepburn]

35. Please cite the Cal PC which states that after a plea an escape...

...enhances the penalty. TIA...:hi:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. Are you implying...

...that when Rapist Polanski is returned to the US his fleeing will NOT add to the amount of time he will be required to serve?

Please cite the penal code from ANYwhere in the US where fleeing goes unpunished.

Maybe fleeing is a seperate crime and the time added as a consecutive sentence but it still adds.

[Hepburn]

41. It's a Calif case...

...the PC in any other jurisdiction is irrelevant ~~ again, since in each of your posts you seem dead certain of what you state ~ please provide the section of the Cal PC which mandates this is an enhancement to the original crime.

There at this time NO amount certain on the amount of time, if any, he is required to serve. Therefore since this is an unknown number, there is no manner at this time with which to calculate what amount of time is added since the original number is an unknown...if time is added at all. See below:

As to your last allegation, have you ever heard the term "concurrent?"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. I was making the point that

...fleeing a conviction carries an added penalty. There is no such thing as a jurisdiction that allows people to go on the lam without penalty.

And if he is given a concurrent sentence all that proves is there are two systems of justice: one for the rich and one for the poor.

[quiller4]

51. "He drugged" when victim provided the drugs and Polanski the booze?

[tk2kewl]

13. you can try him for fleeing

but he cannot be retried for rape (double jeopardy)

[Captain Hilts]

15. Didn't say he should be tried for rape again. Doesn't anybody read here?

[tk2kewl]

17. "new trial" seemed to indicate "re-trial" to me. eom

[Captain Hilts]

19. No. One is 'new' for fleeing. No 're' about it. Question was 'should he be put on trial'. Yes. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. QUESTION: Is there even a trial for fleeing?

After all it seems kind of obvious that a convict was not present to serve his sentence.

I once read that a corpse was put on trial for suicide. Apart from the obvious silliness of trying to punish the already dead (25 to life? really?) it seemed odd that there was ever a need to ask if he was, in fact, dead. Kinda self-evident, eh?

LAWYER: Mr Jones, would you please tell the court in your own words, whether or not you are dead.

*pause*

Mr. Jones, please answer the question.

*pause*

JUDGE: The witness is instructed to answer or he shall be held in contempt.

DEFENSE: Objection, your honor. My client reserves the right to refrain from self-incrimination.

[Captain Hilts]

29. There you got me. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

36. He should be jailed for what he's alreadly pled guilty to and put on trial for fleeing

[Seldona]

37. No. He already was, and plead guilty.

Perhaps on any new charges stemming from his fleeing the outcome. That I could see. But on the old charges, hell no.

[quiller4]

52. and he has already served all the time called for in the original plea deal.

[Seldona]

53. The plea deal wasn't accepted.

Before you agree to it, it is explained the trial judge, at his or her discretion, can disregard the plea deal. He should serve the judges sentence, not the plea deal. No law was broken, and no right was violated by that judge.

It's all moot anyway. Sentences for skipping out on a court order tend to be very severe. He'll probably get a bunch of time just for running.

[closeupready]

39. No, no need. He pled guilty. Well, I guess if you mean for fleeing justice.

Then yes. but for the original crime, no, because he admitted his guilt already.