Roman Polanski Free: Extradition Request REJECTED By Switzerland

Roman Polanski

FRANK JORDANS and BRADLEY S. KLAPPER   07/12/10 07:22 PM ET   AP

GSTAAD, Switzerland — In a stunning ruling, Roman Polanski was declared a free man on Monday – no longer confined to house arrest in his Alpine villa after Swiss authorities rejected a U.S. request for his extradition because of a 32-year-old sex conviction.

The decision left the Oscar-winning director free to return to France and the life of a celebrity, albeit one unable to visit the United States.

Hours after the ruling was announced, Polanski's assistant said he had left his multimillion-dollar chalet with his family. Half-empty glasses seen on a back porch testified to a hasty exit.

"Mr. Polanski can now move freely," Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf declared. "He's a free man."

Switzerland, which arrested the 76-year-old Polanski last September as he arrived receive a lifetime achievement award at a Zurich film festival, blamed U.S. authorities for its decision, citing a possible "fault in the U.S. extradition request."

The United States failed to provide confidential testimony to refute defense arguments the filmmaker had actually served his sentence before fleeing Los Angeles three decades ago, Widmer-Schlumpf said.

The Swiss decision for now ends the United States' long pursuit of Polanski, who has been a fugitive since fleeing sentencing for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl. But Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said his office will try again to have Polanski extradited if he is arrested in another country with a favorable extradition treaty.

Beyond the legal issue, the extradition request was complicated and diplomatically sensitive because of Polanski's status as a cultural icon in France and Poland, where he holds dual citizenship, and his history as a Holocaust survivor whose first wife Sharon Tate was murdered in 1969 by followers of cult leader Charles Manson in California.

France, where the filmmaker has spent much of his time, does not extradite its own citizens and Polanski has had little trouble traveling throughout Europe – although he has stayed away from Britain.

The U.S. cannot appeal the decision, but Polanski is still a fugitive in the United States.

"That warrant remains outstanding," Los Angeles Superior Court spokesman Allan Parachini said, adding that Polanski could be arrested and sent to the U.S. if he traveled to another country that has an extradition treaty with the United States.

In Washington, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the Obama administration was disappointed by the Swiss action. "The United States believes that the rape of a 13-year-old child by an adult is a crime, and we continue to pursue justice in this case," Crowley said.

In Los Angeles, Cooley, who is running for state attorney general, called the decision a "disservice to justice and other victims as a whole." He accused the Swiss of using the issue of the confidential testimony as an excuse to set Polanski free.

"To justify their finding to deny extradition on an issue that is unique to California law regarding conditional examination of a potentially unavailable witness is a rejection of the competency of the California courts," Cooley said. "The Swiss could not have found a smaller hook on which to hang their hat."

A top Justice Department official said the U.S. extradition request was completely supported by treaty, facts and the law. The department is "deeply disappointed" by the Swiss rejection and will review its options, said Lanny Breuer, assistant attorney general in charge of the department's criminal division.

The decision drew cheers and jeers on both sides of the Atlantic.

"The great Franco-Polish director can now freely rediscover his loved ones and devote himself fully to the pursuit of his artistic activities," said French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.

His Polish counterpart Radek Sikorski expressed satisfaction with the Swiss decision, saying that "a solution was found that respects the complex legal considerations and personal circumstances of the case of Mr. Polanski."

At Polanski's multi-million dollar Alpine chalet the shutters were open but there was no sign of movement inside hours after the Swiss decision was announced.

A woman who answered the intercom and identified herself only as "Mr. Polanski's assistant" said the director had left with his wife and two young children, Morgane and Elvis. She declined to say where Polanski had gone or whether he would return.

Glasses stood half-empty glasses on the porch, where neighbors say Polanski was having a meal around noon.

Asked whether Polanski had left the home after being freed Monday from the electronic tags that monitored his movements during his house arrest on $4.5 million bail, a police spokeswoman, Ursula Stauffer, said: "Mr. Polanski is a free man. It's not the job of the police to keep track of his movements."

Widmer-Schlumpf, the Swiss justice minister, said the decision was not meant to excuse Polanski's crime, adding the issue was "not about deciding whether he is guilty or not guilty."

The government said extradition had to be rejected "considering the persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case."

In justifying the decision, Switzerland also invoked what it called the "public order" – a lofty notion meaning that governments should ensure their citizens are safe from arbitrary abuse of the law.

The Justice Ministry cited the fact that U.S. authorities hadn't pursued Polanski in Switzerland previously, even though he's often visited the country and bought a house here in 2006. It also stressed that the victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago publicly identified herself, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal.

The acclaimed director of "Rosemary's Baby," "Chinatown" and "The Pianist" was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again.

The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a "voluntary deportation." Polanski then fled the country on the eve of his Feb. 1, 1978, sentencing.

The office of Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley did not issue any statement about the Swiss decision and he did not return a message seeking comment.

Reaction was varied among Los Angeles' legal community, ranging from those who saw the Swiss decision as a slap in the face to others who thought the efforts by Cooley's office to prosecute Polanski were too late.

"Polanski got away with a lot, but it's not all black and white," said Loyola Law School professor Stan Goldman. "I don't see the D.A. rushing to investigate the very palpable evidence of misconduct in the original case. And the victim said they were hurting her every time they brought this up. So there are many shades of gray."

University of Southern California Law School professor Jean Rosenbluth said that while extradition requests are overwhelmingly approved, the Polanski case presented several difficult issues.

The Swiss had wide latitude to make a decision, and there were a variety of competing interests, said Rosenbluth, a former federal prosecutor who has handled extradition cases.

"In my opinion they wanted to release him and looked for some grounds to support the release," defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. said. "It's a clear affront to the United States and the Los Angeles County District Attorney."

___

Klapper reported from Geneva. Associated Press writers Angela Charlton in Paris, Pete Yost and Robert Burns in Washington, Entertainment writers Anthony McCartney and Sandy Cohen and Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST ENTERTAINMENT

GSTAAD, Switzerland — In a stunning ruling, Roman Polanski was declared a free man on Monday – no longer confined to house arrest in his Alpine villa after Swiss authorities rejected a U.S...
GSTAAD, Switzerland — In a stunning ruling, Roman Polanski was declared a free man on Monday – no longer confined to house arrest in his Alpine villa after Swiss authorities rejected a U.S...
Filed by T.J. Ortenzi  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,327
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (44 total)
01:57 AM on 08/30/2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/21/states-spend-hundreds-of_n_619199.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/27/child-porn-social-network_n_591663.html

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/08/california-about-to-get-tougher-on-sex-offenders.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/chelseas-law-passes-calif_n_693354.html

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/19/chelseas-law-could-launch-a-movement/

read the artcles and discussions in the comment section and then tell me that America doesnt consider underage sex a big deal. They consider it all molest or rape and dont even differentiate between sex offenses. And by the way by Polanskis own account in his book she tried to escape from him with the asthma pretext and he started attacking her sexually and kissing her by his own account.
12:49 AM on 08/23/2010
Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley on Polanski – Oct 1st 2009 and talking about more charges for Roman Polanski - how the business is unfinished, and how extradition should work in Roman Polanski's case, so that Roman Polanski can foot the bill for his extradition and case in Los Angeles County

http://ht.salemweb.net/townhall/audio/mp3/7d95189a-d2d0-41a8-8a3b-b694fb06a0e2.mp3
05:27 AM on 08/09/2010
41st Anniversary of 908 words

If you have listened to music, read a newspaper or watched a movie since August of 1969 – your life has been impacted by the Manson family's murders.

There are many inter-connections

On March 15, 1969 Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski gave a housewarming party at their Cielo Drive home. Previous tenants included: Cary Grant and Dyan Cannon, Henry Fonda, Terry Melcher, Candice Bergan. At the party were: Jane Fonda, Roger Vadim, Peter Fonda, Tony Curtis, Warren Beatty, Nancy Sinatra, Mama Cass Elliot, and others.

Angela Lansbury had signed a consent for her underaged daughter to travel with Charles Manson . Manson gave a ring to Dean Martin’s daughter. Manson reportedly had a sexual encounter with a grand-daughter of Frank Sinatra.

Manson lived in Dennis Wilson's home. The Beach Boys recorded a song that Manson wrote. Neil Young like Manson and gave him a motorcycle.

Lansbury had previously starred in “The Manchurian Candidate” with Frank Sinatra, directed by John Frankenheimer.

In June 1968 RF Kennedy and his wife had dinner at Frankenheimer’s Malibu Beach home with Sharon Tate, Roman Polanski. At the dinner he reportedly said that he would re-open the investigation into his brother’s murder once he got into the White House.

Later Frankenheimer, Tate and Polanski went to the Ambassador Hotel – and R.F. Kennedy was killed.

Oddly enough Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian Christian associated with “The Process” – which connected him to both Melcher and Manson.
06:45 PM on 07/19/2010
Hey the first appearance of Polanski in Switzerland is at a Jazz Festival where his wife Emmanuelle Seigner is singing music from Rosemary’s Baby!!!! LA LA LA LA LA LA

Coincidence? No.

It took the Swiss Justice to say no to the devil of American injustice that lives on in the Santa Monica California courtroom, and the California Court of Appeals, and which injustice gets a helping hand from the Federal Courts who help to cover it up with their published and unpublished decisions, with Federal judges who have ruled out civil rights in California so the abuses can continue unhindered, and who also ratified the torture memos for the Bush administration.

Thanks Switzerland Justice, you stepped in to protect and to give justice to Roman Polanski, as well as sexual assault victims of California since California and Federal justice sorely fails, by working hard to cover up corrruption so that the devil of Judicial , Prosecutorial and Police misconduct can live on freely in the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Courthouse, and other California and Federal Courts.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:00 AM on 07/19/2010
So now we find out that the facts aren't as black and white as they were made out to be:

In exchange for pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. During the psych eval, the psychiatrist released him after 42 days after determining he was mentally sound and unlikely to offend again. In other words, he served his sentence. Then the judge reneged on his plea agreement and intended to order him back to jail for the remaining 48 days. That's when Polanski fled.

A. Whatever you might think of the leniency involved, he did serve his sentence, and

B. This extradition -- 32 yrs too late -- was over the remaining 48 days the judge intended to impose?

All this time, the authorities and the media led us to believe that it was a bigger deal than it actually was. So, how come this information never came out when the story was first broke?

And now we're supposed to be outraged that the Swiss court saw through this farce?
06:34 PM on 07/19/2010
No
08:58 PM on 07/19/2010
The Swiss made a mistake and since have tightened conditions of extradition on account of the political fallout created by District Attorney Steve Cooley's requesting extradition of Roman Polanski, 32 years too late.

Swiss Justice spokesperson said that former Los Angeles prosecutor Roger Gunson's testimony was unimportant to their decision regarding the extradition of Roman Polanski, and assumed the truth of the current Los Angeles prosecutors' request.

After this - then the Swiss Justice did a 180 degree turnaround on their announcement.

At which time it seems that the U.S. Justice Department refused the Swiss request for the transcripts of former Los Angeles prosecutor Roger Gunson's testimony.

Then this refusal of information was used by the Swiss Justice as a convenient way out of a political mess caused by Los Angeles DA Steve Cooley request of extradition of Roman Polanski with underlying factors to bolster Cooley's political campaign to be the next attorney General of California,

and as a retaliation for Polanski exposing Judicial and Prosecutorial corruption in the County of Los Angeles Santa Monica Courthouse, through the documentary movie, Polanski: Wanted and Desired, which showed the details.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
godwithin
10:05 PM on 07/17/2010
gosh, too much from one person (10 of the 12 most recent posts were form one poster), money makes the world go...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jackbutler5555
05:17 PM on 07/17/2010
I don't think many here are familiar with Polanski's side in this case. This site has a link to the appeal by Polanski's lawyers.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/12/10/2077/5972

Of course, those for whom, all this may be too tedious, given they have already decided Polanski is wrong no matter what may want to skip this.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jackbutler5555
09:19 AM on 07/17/2010
"Did you read the testimony from all of the witnesses? Once again, the Grand Jury is for the prosecutor to show enough evidence that a crime was committed and that the defendant should be tried for the crime. Prosecutors don't put on there entire case until trial. So you don't know everything that the prosecutor knew at that time."

mowgo:

Yes. I read the transcript. You're quite correct about the prosecutor's use of the GJ as a tool. He need not worry about using his best stuff for the GJ. He knows the outcome. So, why tip his hand to the defense before he's required to do so?

So, he got his indictments and started prep. He looked at all the evidence and what did he conclude? He doesn't have anymore than he showed the GJ? His conclusion? He'll use the indictments as leverage in the plea negotiations. The defense didn't budge. So, he went with the one charge he could prove because of Polanski's confession.

If you or Nancy Grace were members of that Grand Jury, would you use your subpoena power to call witnesses, such as the doctors who examined the victim and concluded there was no evidence to support her account? Or, would your prosecutorial leanings motivate you to stay as passive as the rest of them in order to help the prosecutor out?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jackbutler5555
09:07 AM on 07/17/2010
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the judge did all that I said he did. He devised the sentence himself. He improperly used the MDSO process to impose a jail sentence. He promised the three lawyers in his chamber that the fake sentence would be the total punishment, etc.

Would he be formalizing these aberrations in a court of law? Or would he be concealing them to prevent the public from finding out about his misconduct?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jackbutler5555
08:38 AM on 07/17/2010
mowgo: Your comments and my responses:

"There were photgraphs taken by Polanski that back up what Samantha said about the pictures."

Unneeded backup. It does not prove the other charges.

"Angelica Huston can put Polanski and Samantha in the room together, and also told police that she was sullen and looked down after she came out of the bedroom."

That they were in the bedroom, that Polanski and she had sex in that bedroom is not in dispute. Your description of Huston is not accurate, but it has no bearing on proof of the other charges.

"The caretaker can verify that Polanski asked for the champagne, and that he called her at the last minute asking to come over for a photoshoot."

What does that prove? You might have something there, but I'd like to know more about why you bring it up.

"Polanski was caught by the police trying to dispose of a quaalude, and they also found quaaludes in the same place in Nicholson's house that Samantha said they would be in."

The existence of the Quaalude in no way proves that he forced her to take it or hid them in her Kool-Aide. Hiding illegal drugs from the cops is what people do when they fear they may be caught on a possession charge.

None of this establishes he forced her, he committed sodomy, oral, etc.
06:57 AM on 07/17/2010
Whilst we r at banning all Swiss products incl. watches / chocolates /knives/ travel also ban football (soccer to u) cause the big boss is a swiss as well.... :-)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jackbutler5555
09:53 PM on 07/16/2010
Book excerpt. I'm not sure the link will work.

This link is to a book segment describing the legal struggle of Bill Farr, LA Times reporter who was part of the two ex parte communications with Judge Rittenband.

http://books.google.com/books?id=s5M86S5ZlC0C&pg=PA342&lpg=PA342&dq=L+A+Times+Bill+Farr+Manson+case&source=bl&ots=lwKErRUJ2C&sig=MzIN_QqRWShDvqyuGTOMaCRIelQ&hl=en&ei=RLzrSqjBKZDQsQP4jcXhCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CB0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=L%20A%20Times%20Bill%20Farr%20Manson%20case&f=false
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jackbutler5555
09:48 PM on 07/16/2010
Two ex parte communications by Judge Rittenband from the New York Times:

"In a rough edit of the film, Richard Brenneman, who covered the case for The Santa Monica Evening Outlook, recalls drafting an affidavit immediately after Judge Rittenband’s death, in which he documented his conversations with the judge in chambers: “Most specifically, how he asked me what sentence to impose on Polanski, which was illegal.”

"In another clip the producer Hawk Koch recounts that his father, the late Howard W. Koch, recalled overhearing Judge Rittenband at the exclusive Hillcrest Country Club, where the judge was a popular member.
“One of the gentlemen at Hillcrest came up to Rittenband,” Mr. Koch tells Ms. Zenovich, “and said, ‘Are you really going to let that little Polish blah-blah-blah off?’ And Rittenband said: ‘Well, he thinks so, but no way. We’re going to put that little blank-blank away for the rest of his life.’ ”

Interesting story. To read the rest, here’s the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/movies/15lyon.html?ei=5088&en=8f280299fc5ab34e&ex=1318564800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jackbutler5555
09:18 PM on 07/16/2010
Due to a malfunction with HuffPo, I am unable to link to his comments addressed to me. So, hopefully, he'll run across this:

1. I referred you to Larry King Live archives.
2. You came back with the quotes that support your version and passed over theose that didn't.

3. So, here's what you didn't quote: Silver is the victim's attorney.

KING: Would you -- should there be extradition? Should Roman Polanski have been extradited, if you could have waived the wand?

SILVER: Well, since I have a somewhat of an understanding, being in that room, when three experienced lawyers who know what a plea bargain is about, and we thought we could trust the judge, turns it around -- I mean, I must tell you that what happened that day, both to Polanski and to some extent the American judicial system, I really think it was a shameful day. And I'm not that upset nor surprised that he left.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jackbutler5555
09:32 PM on 07/16/2010
His refers to Mowgo.
09:42 PM on 07/16/2010
I asked you to prove that Polanski was sentenced, and you sent me there. I came back with a quote from this very same lawyer that said Polanski wasn't sentenced. How terrible of me to stick to the particular point that we were discussing.

This quote seems to be about that the lawyers thought the judge was going to reject the plea deal. The judge has the right to do that.

BTW, Silver is the lawyer that got the $$$$ for his client to support Polanski.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jackbutler5555
10:06 PM on 07/16/2010
Silver's statement can't be trusted? Got $$$$ for his client to support Polanski? Where do you come up with this stuff? Are you really saying that Silver got paid for suing Polanski and, as a result, he is what? Be specific. Are you saying the confidential settlement includes supporting Polanski. How the heck would you know what the terms of the settlement are?

No, the quote is an attack on the judge for devising a plea bargain, allowing Polanski to fulfill his part, and then attempting to back off. "...being in that room, when three experienced lawyers who know what a plea bargain is about..." It was a plea bargain. It was a plea bargain. They knew what it was.

As far as your first comment is concerned, I'll take a look at the posting as soon as my problem with HuffPo is fixed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jackbutler5555
01:59 AM on 07/17/2010
From Mowgo, his excerpt from LK interview with attorney representing Samantha:

KING: Was he sentenced in absentia?

SILVER: No.

KING: Never sentenced?

SILVER: No.

As I have been saying all along, the system was gamed by the judge, who forced the attorneys to observe an unconventional process. What went on in the judge's chambers, had purposely not been formalized in a public hearing. During a public hearing, the judge assign roles to each of the attorney to cover up what was going on behind the scenes.

Logically, do you really think a lawyer would allow his client to go off to prison, if it weren't a deal?
07:04 PM on 07/16/2010
It is time to end this affair Part II
There is no way round the fact that the case was gravely mishandled. The judge was dismissed in 1978 for good reasons (a fact not often quoted by the critics of Polanski). Remember also what the lawyer of Samantha Geimer said on CNN: “What the judge did was frankly outrageous ...” And if the district attorneys who handle the case now refused to reveal to Swiss authorities the testimony that Roger Gunson gave at the beginning of this year it was certainly not because it was helping their case.

Given this context no public interest can be set forth in the pursuit of this affair. It is time to put this case to its rest and to find other priorities.
"Fundamental fairness and justice in our criminal justice system are far more important than the conviction and sentence of any one individual." (A three justices panel of the California court of appeal on the Polanski case)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
godwithin
09:08 PM on 07/16/2010
"It is time to end this" some one died and made you god / king / big kahuna ?