Legal Commentary

LA Judge Deals Another Blow to Roman Polanski

By Jeralyn

At a hearing in Los Angeles yesterday, Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza denied Roman Polanski's motion to unseal the testimony of the original case prosecutor so it could be reviewed by the Swiss in deciding whether prosecutors made false allegations in the extradition request.

Polanski's attorneys argue that the issue is important, in part, because the United States' extradition treaty with Switzerland allows the extradition of a defendant only if the remaining time still to be served is more than six months. They note that an affidavit by L.A. County Deputy Dist. Atty. David Walgren that was given to Swiss authorities does not say Polanski's diagnostic testing was meant to serve as his full prison term.

"This affidavit does not provide the facts, and Mr. Gunson's testimony proves that," attorney Chad S. Hummel said in court Monday.

LA prosecutors argued the extradition request was accurate, citing the fact that it was reviewed by the Department of Justice. When did federal prosecutors become judges? Their view is one that can be taken into account, but it should be the Judge's call.

Prosecutors say Polanski faces up to two years when sentenced. They are arguing about the difference between 48 days (the maximum number of days between the 42 Polanski served and the 90 the judge said he intended to impose) and two years, in a case over 30 years old where the defendant is 76 years old and has been exiled from the U.S. for decades and forced to live under house arrest in Switzerland for months. Give it up already. What are these proceedings, which the victim opposes, costing cash-strapped California? Enough is enough. Free Roman.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on May 11, 2010 (boomark / email).