Legal Commentary

Fingerpointing in Polanski Case Between DOJ and LA Prosecutors

By Jeralyn

The Swiss asked for the sealed transcripts of former district attorney in the Roman Polanski case. DOJ says it consulted with the LA District Attorney's office and denied the request. It was the denial that prevented the Swiss from getting to the heart of the issue: did the judge intend for Polanski only to serve 42 days? If so, then extradition isn't allowed under the treaty. The Swiss Statement denying extradition said:

The Swiss government said it had sought confidential testimony given Jan. 26 by Roger Gunson, the Los Angeles attorney in charge of the original prosecution against Polanski. The United States rejected the request.

The LA District Attorney's office told the judge in May the Swiss never made the request. Now they say they were never notified by DOJ that one had been made.

District attorney's spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said Wednesday that Los Angeles prosecutors were never notified of the request. But the Justice Department said Thursday the Los Angeles District Attorney's office was fully informed and approved the denial.

[More...]

The Swiss had said from the beginning that their extradition laws allowed Polanski to be sent to the United States only if he was going to be required to serve at least six months in prison. They sought the testimony of original prosecutor Roger Gunson to clarify the matter.

The letter added, "Under these circumstances it cannot be excluded with certainty that Roman Polanski, who was imprisoned in the Chino State Prison for 42 days, has not already served the sentence imposed on him."

The Swiss have changed their extradition procedures as a result of the Polanski case.

In response to issues raised by his case, it was decided extradition proceedings may be started only with the approval of the director of the justice ministry. In the past, a purely technical procedure allowed low-ranking officials to initiate proceedings once a valid request had been received.

The change was made so that the “the procedure may be opened for larger judicial considerations and political considerations,” Mr. Balmer said. “There was no political pressure” in this case, Mr. Balmer said.

More on who knew what when here.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on July 15, 2010 (boomark / email).