Legal News

Could Revelations in Polanski Documentary Lead to Appeal?

By Dan Slater

Last month, we watched a riveting HBO documentary on the media circus that was the statutory rape trial of Roman Polanski, who’s known best for his films “Rosemary’s Baby” and “Chinatown” (though “The Tenant,” an earlier film he made and starred in, is also stellar.) The documentary focuses on Polanski’s trial, and includes interviews with Polanski’s lawyer, Doug Dalton, the prosecutor in the case, and then-L.A. district attorney David Wells — all of whom are very frank about the strange behavior of Laurence J. Rittenband, the judge who presided over Polanski’s case. In the film, Wells describes scenarios in which he advised Rittenband on how to handle certain aspects of the case.

Roman Polanski, and his attorney Douglas Dalton on Aug. 9, 1977, after Polanski entered a guilty plea to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl. (AP Photo)

While watching the movie, entitled “Roman Polanksi: Wanted and Desired,” we wondered whether the allegations involving judicial misconduct provided grounds for Polanski to reopen the case. Apparently, Polanski, who fled to France in 1978 to avoid a possible prison sentence, and his lawyer, thought the same thing.

First, a bit of background about Polanski’s case: In March of 1977, actor Jack Nicholson left his house on Mulholland Drive in the hands of Polanski (as well as Anjelica Huston and, inexplicably, Marlon Brando’s maid). Polanski, 44, owed the French edition of Vogue magazine a photo story and had decided to take nude photos of 13-year old Samantha Geimer. Polanski gave Geimer alcohol and pharmaceutical drugs, and then they had sex.

Superior Court Judge Laurence Rittenband talks with journalists Mon. Feb. 6, 1978 about the Roman Polanski case. (AP Photo/George Brich)

In the wake of the documentary, Polanski’s lawyer, Dalton, has told the NYT that Wells’s self-described contacts with the judge appeared to violate California law and legal ethics. “There could be a motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct,” Dalton said. “We want to develop information about the extent of the ex parte contacts, what other communications Wells had, whether anybody else was aware of them, that sort of thing.”

Dalton acknowledged that fugitives have little standing to press conventional appeals. But, he said, California law would permit either a judge or the prosecutor’s office to seek remedies on behalf of Polanski, including dismissal of the case, if either believed the judicial process had been corrupted.

Wells denied that his contact with the judge had been improper, saying it occurred in open court during routine discussions of cases. “I didn’t tell him to do it or that he should do it,” Wells said of the judge’s decision to put Polanski in prison for 42 days for psychiatric review. “I just told him what his options were.”

In an e-mail to the Times, Polanski, 74, said he wouldn’t make any decisions until his lawyer had finished reviewing Wells’s actions. “I’m not ruling anything out,” he said. “I believe that closure of that entire matter is long overdue.”

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on July 17, 2008 (boomark / email).