Roman Polanski’s lawyer indicated, Monday, that he will renew his request to issue a judgment in absentia against the fugitive director, a day after the disclosure of a report reviving allegations of misconduct in the 45-year-old director’s rape case.
But the path to resolving the issue is not at all straightforward. Harland Brown, Polanski’s attorney, said in an interview that he first wanted a new judge to be appointed to handle the matter. Brown stated that the current judge, Sam Ota, could not be trusted to treat it fairly, noting that Ota initially refused to release the record, which the defense has sought to disclose for 12 years.
“Ohta worthless,” Brown said in an interview. “Ohta they are all rotten. I don’t trust any judge in Los Angeles to hear this.”
Brown said he first wanted to go to Judge Eric C. Taylor, the Los Angeles County District Court Chief, eventually wants to move the case to another county. He also argued that under COVID rules, Polanski should be allowed to appear via Zoom from France, rather than back in the US
Polanski had been a fugitive since fleeing the country in 1978, before being convicted of illegal intercourse with a 13-year-old girl. Polanski’s lawyers have long maintained that he was a victim of misconduct by Judge Lawrence Rittenband, who they accused of backing out of a deal to sentence him to no more than a short prison term for a psychiatric evaluation.
The latest development in the case occurred last Wednesday, when the Court of Appeals granted a request from two journalists — Sam Wasson and William Rimple — to release a conditional examination transcript for Roger Johnson, the deputy attorney general who handled the case in 1977.
Johnson co-starred in “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Wanted,” the 2008 documentary that delved into these allegations. In 2010, he was questioned under oath by Polanski’s attorneys as they sought to dismiss the case. The aim of the examination was largely to get Gunson’s account of the documentary under oath, much of it simply repeating what has been known to the public for 14 years.
Polanski pleaded guilty to one count in 1977 and ordered a Chino state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation before sentencing.
In his testimony, Johnson said that after Polanski completed his psychiatric exam in just 42 days, Rittenband reneged on his promise to be sentenced without any additional time. Instead, Rittenband said he would send Polanski to the state prison and then “summon” as soon as he served another 48 days. Johnson said the judge also backed out of an agreement to give Polanski enough time to finish a film he was working on.
“It was clear that the judge had promised him on two occasions something that he had reneged on,” Johnson testified. “So understanding that scenario, I can understand why Mr. Polanski didn’t take the opportunity to go to state prison and not be called.”
Johnson also said that he drafted an affidavit in 1977 explaining the reasons for Rittenband’s removal from the case. He testified that Rittenband usually had improper one-sided communications about his cases. He also said he believed Rittenband was influenced by media coverage of the case.
Gunson noted that prosecutors also acted inappropriately due to the high profile nature of the case. The rape took place at Jack Nicholson’s home and some prosecutors went when investigators issued a search warrant there. On examination, Johnson was shown a photo of two prosecutors standing in Nicholson’s library holding his Oscar figurine. (He had won his first Best Actor award for “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” two years earlier.) Gunson commented that the picture was “obviously inappropriate.”
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has taken the position that Polanski must first return to the United States before the case is settled. But George Gascon, who was elected in 2020, has indicated he may be more flexible about that. Last week, Gascon reversed his opposition to the release of Johnson’s version, noting that the victim in the case, Samantha Geimer, requested that it be made public in order to “shut down.”
Tiffany Blacknell, Gascon’s special counsel, also said last week that the office would re-examine the case “with fresh eyes” as soon as they had a chance to read the script.
“A lot of people are skeptical that something unwanted is going on,” she said. diverse. “We share that curiosity and that concern.”
Steve Cooley, who served as a DA from 2000 to 2012, criticized Gascon in an interview Friday, saying he appears to have already decided to settle the case in Polanski’s favour.
“Why is he being judged in absentia?” Cooley said. “Because he’s an Academy Award winner? Because he’s a great director? There’s no exception in the penal code for that. She appears like everyone else.”
In a statement on Monday, the DA’s office said it had not changed its position and that Polanski should turn himself in.
“We are still evaluating the contents of the text and have not made a final decision on any defense request, as no proposal has been made recently,” the office said. We have long maintained that Mr. Polanski should turn himself in to the Los Angeles Superior Court. Any suggestion to the contrary is wrong.”
Polanski’s lawyers made repeated efforts to reach an agreement under which Polanski could return to the United States without risking an additional period of detention. More recently, in 2017, Judge Scott Gordon denied Brown’s request for dismissal and a request for a judgment in absentia for Polanski.
Michelle Hennessy, the attorney general who appeared in court to oppose those requests, declined to comment on the case on Monday.
“This is still an open case,” she said. “I can’t morally comment on an open case.”
[ad_2]
