******BREAKING NEWS*******
As we reported in some detail here and here, during the last days of 2009 a Los Angeles appellate panel strongly encouraged LA Superior Court judge Peter Espinoza to allow Roman Polanski—on the lam since a (now deceased) judge and Los Angeles prosecutors violated ethics rules (and the director’s plea-bargain) by conferring in secret, then revealing an intention to double-cross and ambush Polanski at the sentencing hearing (leading the director after he got wind of this to flee to his native France)—to consent to sentencing “in absentia” so Espinoza’s reasons for refusing hear evidence of judicial and prosecutorial corruption would go away.
But when his bluff was called, Judge Espinoza essentially said “hell no” to the court of appeals by flatly rejecting Polanski’s motion to be sentenced “in absentia” as the appellate court recommended.
Following Judge Espinoza’s nose thumb at his own supervising court of appeal, the Swiss authorities who are being asked to extradite the French director into Espinoza’s appellate court defiant, pro-prosecution embrace, balked—placing Polanski’s extradition on indefinite hold.
Polanski’s latest attempt to break that log jam—with the continued support of his now 46 year old “victim”—is his March 18, 2010 court of appeal petition to dismiss the 33 year old statutory rape charge based on new evidence of judicial an prosecutor corruption—or at least to unseal the secret evidence of that corruption and allow Polanski’s attorneys to provide that evidence to Swiss authorities now being asked to return the director to face the same corrupted, 30 year old court case.
A frustrated Los Angeles appeals court apparently agrees that Polanski’s latest allegations have potential merit, because they have taken the rare step of ordering Los Angeles prosecutors to file a written explanation of why the director’s latest court of appeal peitition to dismiss should not be granted:
And so the plot thickens—stay tuned…..
As we reported in some detail here and here, during the last days of 2009 a Los Angeles appellate panel strongly encouraged LA Superior Court judge Peter Espinoza to allow Roman Polanski—on the lam since a (now deceased) judge and Los Angeles prosecutors violated ethics rules (and the director’s plea-bargain) by conferring in secret, then revealing an intention to double-cross and ambush Polanski at the sentencing hearing (leading the director after he got wind of this to flee to his native France)—to consent to sentencing “in absentia” so Espinoza’s reasons for refusing hear evidence of judicial and prosecutorial corruption would go away.
But when his bluff was called, Judge Espinoza essentially said “hell no” to the court of appeals by flatly rejecting Polanski’s motion to be sentenced “in absentia” as the appellate court recommended.
Following Judge Espinoza’s nose thumb at his own supervising court of appeal, the Swiss authorities who are being asked to extradite the French director into Espinoza’s appellate court defiant, pro-prosecution embrace, balked—placing Polanski’s extradition on indefinite hold.
Polanski’s latest attempt to break that log jam—with the continued support of his now 46 year old “victim”—is his March 18, 2010 court of appeal petition to dismiss the 33 year old statutory rape charge based on new evidence of judicial an prosecutor corruption—or at least to unseal the secret evidence of that corruption and allow Polanski’s attorneys to provide that evidence to Swiss authorities now being asked to return the director to face the same corrupted, 30 year old court case.
A frustrated Los Angeles appeals court apparently agrees that Polanski’s latest allegations have potential merit, because they have taken the rare step of ordering Los Angeles prosecutors to file a written explanation of why the director’s latest court of appeal peitition to dismiss should not be granted:
“The court has read and considered the petition for writ of mandate filed herein March 18, 2010. The People are requested to serve and file opposition, on or before March 30, 2010.”
And so the plot thickens—stay tuned…..
No comments:
Post a Comment