POLANSKI CASE HEARD BY CALIFORNIA COURT AS DIRECTOR CHILLS IN TONEY VILLA

As Oscar winning—and fugitive—director Roman Polanski hangs at his chalet (under house arrest) in ultra-exclusive Gstaad (think Prince Charles, Rodger Moore, and international royalty of all sorts)—a California court of appeal is mulling over Polanski’s bid to return his motion to dismiss the case to Los Angeles County Superior Court judge Peter Espinoza for an up-or-down determination on whether Espinoza should dismiss all charges against the director due to alleged judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.

Judge Espinoza decided earlier this year that while Polanski had presented compelling evidence that 32 years ago and before the director fled to Europe from his Los Angeles home that his original trial judge (now deceased) improperly communicated with a member of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in aid of ambushing Polanski at his stenciling hearing, the judge was powerless to decide the case since Polanski is a fugitive—albeit a sable lined fugitive.

This hearing took place yesterday, in a Los Angeles courtroom at the California Court of Appeal.

According to the Los Angeles Times:

“An attorney for Roman Polanski urged a California appeals court panel Thursday to throw out the filmmaker's 1977 child sex case, citing what he called an "astonishing record of misconduct" by the district attorney's office and the judge who originally handled the case.

”Chad S. Hummel argued that Judge Laurence J. Rittenband improperly discussed with a prosecutor how to punish Polanski and threatened to lock up the director for a longer period if his attorney challenged the judge's decision to return Polanski to prison.”"

""It sends chills up your spine what this judge was doing," Hummel told the three appellate court justices in downtown Los Angeles.”"

The court of appeal is not expected to decide the issue of whether Polanski's case should be dumped, but only whether Judge Espinoza erred when he found earlier this year that a long line of prior appeal cases prevent a fugitive defendant from challenging their criminal cases until they surrender.

Up until now the universally applied rule is that fugitive criminal defendants have no standing to appeal their convictions, which appeals have been routinely dismissed in such circumstances.

By law the court of appeal’s decision must issue within 90 days.

Meanwhile, Polanski (as with other high-profile fugitives only recently arrested after decades of flight—think Susan Olsen)—now faces a much harsher sentencing environment and political mood toward most crimes. Especially crimes of “indiscretion” involving teen girls, no matter how “experienced” the girl was at the time, or how forgiving the victim has become in her adult years.

Stay tuned folks. It’s goanna get interesting.