Legal Commentary

Appeals Court Rejects Roman Polanski's Bid Over New Evidence of Judicial Misconduct

By Jeralyn

California's Second Appellate District has denied Roman Polanski's petition for writ of mandate. He filed the petition in March, seeking a sentence of time served in his 1977 sex case, based on new evidence of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct contained in previously undisclosed sealed transcripts of improper communications between the Judge and prosecutors. He also sought to have the new transcripts disclosed to the Swiss.

Also today, the court rejected a bid by the victim to dismiss the case.

The order in Polanski's case reads: (obtained from Court docket): [More...]

By petition for writ of mandate filed March 18, 2010, petitioner requests relief from this Court on the basis of new evidence and ask this Court to overturn the magistrates's order sealing a conditional examination transcript. Petitioner has failed to present this evidence to and request his desired relief from the trial court. (Phelan v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 363, 372; Safai v. Savia (2008) 164 Cal. Ap.4th 233, 243), and he has not established that he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Code Vil. Proc., sec. 1086.)

Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that the trial court lacked the discretion under Penal Code section 1193 to refuse to approve petitoner's absence at sentencing. The petitioner for writ of mandate is summarily denied.

So they are saying he should have filed his request to unseal the transcripts (so the Swiss could have them) in the trial court? Can he still do so and then appeal the trial court's refusal? Since the court won't let him be sentenced in absentia, and it won't investigate the misconduct allegations, his hopes seem to lie with the Swiss, who have been waiting for some kind of statement from the California court on how much time Polanski faces if extradited. (If it's under the time specified in the treaty, he's not extraditable.) It doesn't look like the Swiss are going to get an answer from California. Maybe they will say since the court refused to clarify the issue, the prosecution didn't carry its burden of proving Polanski is extraditable in response to Polanski's challenge. Or, maybe the opposite will happen.

Since Polanski will get time served if he returns for sentencing, the real reason for dragging him back is to cause a media sensation with a perp walk and make it seem like he's walking down the hall of shame. Shame on them. Free Roman.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on April 22, 2010 (boomark / email).