Swiss Reject Secret Polanski Testimony
Justice officials in Switzerland say they will not accept secret, unsealed testimony from a former prosecutor in the Roman Polanski case. The director's lawyers wanted the testimony -- which reportedly impugns the judge in Polanski's 1978 trial and sentencing -- unsealed in an effort to block his extradition. The Swiss say they will instead move forward "on the assumption that the extradition request from the U.S. is based on correct statements." Anyone want to predict the date he lands in L.A.? [AP]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Swiss Official's need to study the wisdom in the statement
"Don’t assume, otherwise you’ll make an ass out of you and me." in addition to studying California's Judicial decisions in Roman Polanski's case.
Swiss Officials should also take into account other witnesses information corroborating Judicial & police corruption against foreign born people, in sex cases, in the Santa Monica Courthouse, which demonstrates a double standard in sex cases depending on who the perpetrator is, and which demonstrates discrimination against those who do not work for California and are foreign born.
If the Swiss Officials want to have the appearance of being fair and NOT ARBITRARY in the extradition process then Swiss Justice must study whether the original Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson’s statements as to what Polanski's original sentence was - is true or not, since the original Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson is a witness to what the Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband ordered, and the current Los Angeles prosecutors are not witnesses since they were not part of Polanski's case in 1977.
Swiss Justice, through its spokesperson Folco Galli stated on 30th April 2010, that the original Los Angeles Prosecutor in Roman Polanski's 1977 case, Roger Gunson's testimony is not relevant, which is not at all true.
The comments from MINK are totally incorrect and shows little understanding of extradition treaties and the parameters of domestic and international law, let alone common sense. I wouldn't expect most people to have knowledge of how extradition treaties work or international law, but common sense is always a good thing. Countries with extradition treaties don't question the laws or domestic legal decisions of another country, and it would be wrong for them to do so. Think about it, why would they?
They certainly don't have the expertise or background to do so and its not their role to decide on the legalities of the domestic laws of other countries. The only time this would come into play would be when there were gross human rights violations which doesn't come into play here, and usually in those cases there are no extradition treaties anyway.
Its not the purpose of the Swiss courts to retry or examine the case of any other country. As I stated, they wouldn't have the expertise or background. For example, how would you like to be an American woman (or Swiss for that matter) who has been abused by her husband and have the case decided by a Saudi Arabian judge? The Swiss court's job is to examine weather the fugitive has fled the court system of another country, one that has an extradition treaty with them (an extradition treaty means that the foreign court systems are fully vetted as acceptable) and that no human rights violations have been committed (he's not being imprisoned because he escaped a life as a galley slave for example). This is not a case of seeking asylum.
It seems MINK didn't take his own advise. By pretending to know his subject he only ended up making an ass out of HIMself. Also one has to question why of all court cases in the news why anyone except paid legal counsel would support a child molester who fled a relatively minor jail term. MINK likes old adages, so here's one..."birds of a feather flock together."
The Swiss Officials and spokesperson should study the concept, Dont assume, otherwise youll make an ass out of you and me.
If Swiss Officials are going to be fair, and NOT ARBITRARY in Roman Polanskis extradition process then Swiss Justice would have to study whether the current Los Angeles Prosecutors statements regarding what Polanskis sentence was back in 1977 - is true or not, and should not just assume that what the Los Angeles prosecutors are saying is true.
If the sentence was originally less than 6 months then Roman Polanski cannot be extradited by Switzerland according to their treaty with U.S.A.
Currently it sounds as if Swiss Officials want to discount the original Los Angeles Prosecutor in Polanskis case, Roger Gunsons testimony regarding what the original sentence was, without even considering Gunsons sealed testimony. If Swiss Justice wants to assume that current Los Angeles Prosecutors would be honest enough to make a true statement as to the length of Polanskis sentence back in 1977, when they requested extradition of Roman Polanski after 32 years in 2009, that assumption will make an ass out of them, as well as you and me.
Polanskis lawyers have asked the Los Angeles Court on April 29th 2010,for access to the sealed transcript of testimony by Los Angeles prosecutor, Roger Gunson, concerning the original Judges sentencing plan for Roman Polanski in 1977. Polanskis California lawyers assert that LA prosecutor Roger Gunsons testimony proves the extradition request by the current Los Angeles Prosecutors filed with Switzerlands Justice Department last year INCLUDED A FALSE DEPICTION OF THE SENTENCING PLAN made by the original Judge Rittenband 33 years ago.
The Los Angeles Prosecutors request to Switzerland in 2009, on the topic of sentencing, said that Judge Rittenband sent Polanski to prison in 1977 for a psychiatric study so -the Judge would be in a better position to reach a fair and just decision - before sentencing,
However what the Los Angeles prosecutors are saying is not true, since there was an immediate short psychiatric study of Polanski when he was first arrested in 1977. This first study which was positive for Polanski, occurred before the Judge allowed Roman Polanski to leave the country to make a movie, and before Polanski returned to US and underwent the second pyschiatric study at Chino prison. For more info see link below.
And even if the original Santa Monica Judge Rittenband did make a statement to the press on 20th Sept 1977 see, http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JNURAAAAIBAJ&sjid=He4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6879,1950498&hl=en
What he said in the staged hearing for the press, is entirely different to what he told the Los Angeles Prosecutor Gunson and the other lawyers involved in his chambers, in regards to his sentencing plan for Roman Polanski.
For more information on the Santa Monica Judges Judicial corruption, and evidence about the staged hearing, and that the 90 days at Chino was to be the entire sentence originally, see the documentary movie Polanski: Wanted and Desired.
The Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson in Roman Polanskis 1977 case, has stated in testimony that has been sealed, that Roman Polanskis prison stay at Chino was to constitute his entire sentence, and lawyers Douglas Dalton for Polanski, and Laurence Silver for Samantha Geimer the victim concur.
Also it is documented in the Los Angeles times in Feb 1978 that the original Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband would have sentenced Polanski in absentia so why could that not happen now?
Isnt all this torment just to add more clout to the Los Angeles District Attorneys lust for power, so he can become the next Attorney General, at the expense of another famous person Roman Polanski, who in addition to serving his time at Chino, is proven to be harmless
However Polanski may not be harmless in that he is a master of depicting corruption, and the danger of hidden and ruthless power.
But this was not the crime for which Polanski was formally charged in Los Angeles in 1977.
Let us also remember the vicious circle. Polanskis arrest and pending extradition deflects attention away from the Santa Monica Judicial & Prosecutorial corruption against him in 1977, which caused Polanski to be placed in a Catch-22 situation in 1978, & which in turn caused him to flee America.
See also http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/apr2010/pola-a24.shtml
Polanskis attorneys allege that prosecutors behind Polanski’s current legal battle over extradition supplied false information to authorities in Switzerland that would support a ruling in favor of extraditing Polanski.
His attorneys argue that prosecutors have known for several years that Judge Rittenband never intended for Polanski to serve more than 90 days behind bars, and that this sentence falls far below the Swiss government’s threshold for extraditing prisoners
According to the country’s justice ministry, Switzerland will not extradite someone who is not expected to serve at least six months in prison.
The 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (Marina Zenovich) investigated the court case and exposed several instances of misconduct by the judge.
Among them was Rittenband’s decision to force Polanski into a mandatory 90-day diagnostic assessment and mental evaluation at California’s Chino State Prison as a means of punishing the director.
Because the diagnostic was mandatory, this was the only way Polanski could be sent to prison with no legal right to appeal.
Both the prosecution and defense team in the case protested the decision, arguing that it was illegal to use the test as a means of punishment.
While much of what the documentary revealed about the case was believed to have been unknown until
recently, new testimony by Roger Gunson, the lead prosecutor in the 1977 hearings, suggests that prominent officials in the Los Angeles and California criminal justice system were well aware of Judge Rittenband’s behavior at the time and did nothing to stop it.
According to the appeal filed Thursday, Gunson informed his superiors at the district attorney’s office at the time of the original court proceedings that he was preparing to file papers calling for the removal of Rittenband from the case.
He gave a draft of his affidavit to Los Angeles County’s Chief Deputy District Attorney Stephen Trott and supervising Deputy District Attorney Michael Montagna. When asked how they could verify Gunson’s claims against the judge, Gunson invited them to talk to Rittenband personally.
Trott and Montagna then met with Rittenband and reported back to Gunson. Incredibly, they informed Gunson that Rittenband had “admitted all of the alleged misconduct,” but that in spite of this they would deny Gunson permission to have the judge dismissed from the case.
This revelation exposes the degree to which illegal conduct prevailed in the 1977 court proceedings, involving not only the behavior of the judge, but also conduct “at the highest levels of the district attorney’s office in August 1977,” in the words of the appeal. It is now clearer than ever before that Roman Polanski was never granted a fair trial in the US. His constitutional rights have been violated repeatedly during the entire affair.
In addition to the revelations regarding misconduct at the 1977 proceedings, the filmmaker’s attorneys allege that prosecutors behind Polanski’s current legal battle over extradition supplied false information to authorities in Switzerland that would support a ruling in favor of extraditing Polanski. His attorneys argue that prosecutors have known for several years that Judge Rittenband never intended for Polanski to serve more than 90 days behind bars, and that this sentence falls far below the Swiss government’s threshold for extraditing prisoners. According to the country’s justice ministry, Switzerland will not extradite someone who is not expected to serve at least six months in prison.
Polanski has already served more time in custody than the 90 days ordered by Rittenband. In addition to the 42 days he spent at Chino State Prison in 1977, before the authorities administering the diagnostic test recommended his early release, Polanski spent 69 days in a Zürich prison cell in 2009. Since then he has served more than 100 days under house arrest in his home in Gstaad, Switzerland.