Roman Polanski Loses Bid To Disqualify LA Court In Rape Case

LOS ANGELES — A judge on Friday rejected a motion by Roman Polanski's lawyer to disqualify all judges in Los Angeles County from hearing a bid to dismiss the director's rape case because of bias.

Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza said the county had 600 judges and that only in extremely rare instances could it be possible to find no judge qualified to preside over the matter. He also said he was not biased against or in favor of Polanski, whose lawyers were seeking to dismiss a conviction in the rape of a 13-year-old girl in Los Angeles.

"I have not yet decided or prejudged any of the issues presented by counsel for defendant's motion pending before me," Espinoza said.

Polanski, 75, has been a fugitive living in France for 31 years after pleading guilty to a single charge of sexual intercourse with a minor. His attorneys filed the dismissal request last month because of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct that was detailed in a television documentary.

Espinoza also said in the ruling Friday that the court's public information officer had been correct to suggest Polanski had to be present in court for his motion to be heard. The officer, Allan Parachini, was not named in the ruling but had been singled out in a filing by Polanski attorney Chad Hummel.

"In this matter, there is an outstanding arrest warrant that requires the defendant's presence in court," Espinoza said. "This reflects the order of the judge who issued the bench warrant."

Espinoza also rejected Hummel's claim that the Los Angeles County Superior Court must be disqualified because one of its members, Judge Larry Paul Fidler, played a role in negotiations for Polanski to return to the country and would probably be a witness in the case.

"The fact that a judge of the court is a witness in the proceeding is not alone disqualifying given the size and diversity of the court," Espinoza said, noting the county's 50 courthouses spread over 4,000 square miles.

Espinoza let stand a hearing scheduled for Jan. 21 in which he will preside. However, the district attorney's office has said that if Polanski does not plan to attend, the hearing should be canceled.

Prosecutors have said that if Polanski were to return to Los Angeles, he would be arrested.

Espinoza reminded attorneys that his ruling on the question of disqualification cannot be appealed. But he said a mechanism called a writ of mandate allows them to seek a review by a state appeals court within 10 days.

A call to Hummel seeking comment on the ruling was not immediately returned Friday.

Comments

[Alt-Email]

The most interesting thing about the case by far is that there is any controversy about it all. Raping 13-year-old girls is pretty much guaranteed to make a person universally hated in this country. Except if the Rapist is a prominent show-business figure. The extent to which our normal values do not apply to show-business people is astonishing. It is as if, as a culture, we are unwilling to acknowledge any truth that would contradict the "image" of a show-business person.

After all, Polanski pled Guilty. HE acknowledged, formally, that he did what he was accused of. The Grand Jury testimony is chilling. The girl (brave, at 13 years old) told him to stop many times, right from the first physical contact. He admitted that he ignored her plea. She asked to go home. He ignored her plea again. Once he had already raped her vaginally she asked him not to rape her anally. He admitted that he ignored her plea again and raped her anally. This is the truth according to Polanski. But the truth according to much of the public (including the inaptly-named LiberalBuzz in this forum) is that he is a Great Man and should be forgiven.

It's very odd. If he were an architect who had fled to Florida for 30 years, no one would object to locking him up. But a movie maker who flees to Paris is a different story. It says alot about our culture and priorities.

[lmvd3]

Smart judge.

[SeagirlX]

I wish people would leave Roman alone and get on with their own lives.

[tkondaks]

Yes, poor baby.

And, besides, in some cultures it is perfectly normal to sodomize 13-year-olds...so why shouldn't Roman do it?

The Ayatollah Khomeini marry a 11-year-old when he was 27 years old. Why, that's 2 years YOUNGER than Polanski's victim.

[sweetwhine]

It's not like we brought it up.

[truthyguy]

He makes some great films - do they call him "Roman the Great Filmmaker"? No.

He throws great parties - do they call him "Roman the Great Partythrower"? No.

But have anal intercourse with just one 13 year old girl and they call him "Roman the Rapist".
Does this really seem fair? After all he is a celebrity and has money.

[daedelus]

I don't know anything about his parties, but his work will be studied by film majors a hundred years from now.

[truthyguy]

Great - you're right. Let him walk from the rape because his films will be studied. Tell me just one thing - How did you get such F--ked up priorities?

[beatlejohn]

Maybe he wants to say goodbye to his murdered wife before he dies.

[lmvd3]

Than he should have not committed statutory rape.

[as1504]

I think Polanski should return to the US...to be remanded to custody of the California Department of Corrections to serve out a sentence that has yet to meted out by a judge. His 31 year fugitive status should be an aggravating factor in the sentencing and he should max out. I am disgusted by the way he has shown contempt for our judicial proceedings by calling judges biased (plead guilty), trying to appeal a guilty plea (when you plead guilty you are warned about the waiver of rights to appeal), taking flight from his punishment, and now this outrage of trying to get his motions heard in court without being present, which is a cynical scheme at making an ineffective assistance of counsel (among other appellate claims) a relevant charge on appeal.

I love France. I lived there in college, law school, and keep a home there. However, that it has become a safe haven for the most appalling criminals disappoints me. They should have extradited Polanski the moment he was on French soil. He drugged and raped a 13 year old. His transgression of US law is outrageous and offensive.

Why does Polanski want to come back here? To rape another child? He obviously finds our laws and society so odious that he sees himself above our laws. I do not understand him.

[Glenn1441]

Obviously you are not familiar with the case in the least.

[as1504]

Oh really? He didn't abscond from justice? He has not been a fugitive for 31 years? He did not give that 13 year old girl drugs and have sex with her (sex without consent, which she could not give because of her age and altered mental status, is rape)? He hasn't been living in France to avoid serving his time in prison? Attempting to disqualify all 600 jurists on the LA bench as "biased" is not a smear? As for his legal tactics, I know a naked attempt at snaring an appeal when I see one.

You know what? I take it all back. If you have young kids, I'll fly us all to Paris and he can babysit your kids (with unfettered access to narcotics) while you familiarize me with all of the aspects of the case, with vigorous attention to detail so that he can entertain your kids and I can make certain that I not further tar his good name. You and I can have an interesting colloquy whilst Polanski and your kids have a rollicking good time. Meet me at JFK? If you hurry, there is usually an Air France flight that leaves at or around 7 that I usually take. You bring the kids and the case file and I'll bring the drugs.

[harriettubman]

What I find appalling is that he's gone on to make movies and remain a successful man. There's no way I'd support anything he did. Some people just don't care and will shell out their money for anybody. I don't support R. Kelly and his f*tish for little girls and Polanski falls into the same category.

[kylennblack]

No kidding. He needs to be in prison breaking rocks with R Kelly.

[hotpinko]

Thanks for representing us so well in France. Ugh.

[lenzorizzo]

The "justice " system in this country is clearly broken. Just count the number of non-violent drug "offenders" rotting away in run-for-profit prisons and the disproportionate number of black men on death row. Then contrast that with the number of "white-collar" thieves and killers who remain free on bail or escape indictment altogether. Why would anyone willingly subject himself to such a system?

[HoneyRyder]

I love Johnny Depp, but I lost a little respect for him because of the way he defends Polanski and makes it seem as we Americans are overreacting to Polasnki's crime of raping a 13 year old. In France, they act like he is a hero, and seems to just brush off this crime because it was in the past.

Since Depp is such a defender of Polanski, I wonder how comfortable he would feel letting Roman Polanski babysit his little daughter?

[lmvd3]

Oh, geez. One of the few actors that I liked....Johnny Depp. Now that's over with.

[blondecuban]

He plead GUILTY to the charges. There's really nothing more to discuss. Why did he not take his sentence just like everyone else? I, for one, don't want that criminal back in this country.

[Patriot68]

Great post. He plead guilty and deserves his punishment end of story.

[Idablu]

Good! Did you read what he did to that girl? He is a sick man.

[SpaghettyIrish]

There was a documentary on HBO about a year back. The Judge in his case was trying to make himself a star, assigning roles and dialogue to the prosecutor and defense attorney. Polanski was wrong, but having heard what was happening in the judge's chamber, confirmed by both sides, there wasn't going to be justice for anyone anyway.

[sweetwhine]

True, the judge's behavior was wrong. But does it excuse what Polanski did to that 13 yr old girl?

[lj9283]

Is this the same Roman Polanski, who's pregnant wife was stabbed 16 times and brutally murdered by the followers of Charles Manson?

[nervousexpat]

yep, Sharon Tate et al.

[lj9283]

Ya think that type of thing might of gotten a guy twisted?

[booker52]

Good, he should be made to pay and frame doesn't give a licence to rape an under age girl. 31 years doesn't wipe out the crime.

[LiberalBuzz]

Try watching the documentary first and then get back to us.

Roman was screwed over by the system. He had already been jailed twice and had been following all of the judge's orders but it was found out that the prosecutor and the judge were in cahoots to railroad Roman for more political reasons than anything else. He went from facing a third short jail term to fifty years.

Like I said, watch the documentary and see what really happened.

[tkondaks]

I've seen the documentary twice.

And the mishandling of the case doesn't change the fact that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old when he was 44 years old.

Okay, so he shouldn't have gotten 50 years. But 20 years? Don't you think that would have been appropriate?

As it is, he has only spent several months in jail; that's all. The rest of the time he's been eating baguettes and camembert washed down with champagne in the lap of luxury in Paris.

[sweetwhine]

I watched the doc. He's guilty. Plain and simple. Yes it's wrong what the judge and prosecutor did. But regardless, he's guilty of hurting that young girl.

[Chaimirija]

I wonder if he and Woody Allen are friends?

[kolorkin]

inappropriate and unfair comment. don't drag Woody into this until you know all the facts!

[sweetwhine]

What facts? The world knows what Woody did.

Chaimirija, they're not friends...they're long lost brothers.

[lmvd3]

Came to my mind, too. I'm completely revolted by both of them.

[missjabez]

Roman Polanski is extremely talented but has had a sad and tragic life; his mother died in a concentration camp in World War II and his wife was viciously murdered by the Manson gang. I am glad I am not the judge in this case. What he did to Samantha Germer was disgusting, and instead of taking responsibility for his actions, he fled the United States and became a fugitive from justice. Even if he gets every so-called biased judge in the state of California disqualified, I doubt he will achieve the outcome he desires.

[LiberalBuzz]

The sentence would have to be in accordance with what laws were in effect at the time of his conviction.