Interview #2: Tamara in the Polish News: Chcemy Polanskiego (The Roman Polanski Case)

Article link here:

USA: chcemy Polańskiego

Jacek Przybylski 23-10-2009, ostatnia aktualizacja 24-10-2009 01:34

Ameryka oficjalnie zażądała od Szwajcarii wydania reżysera. Czy Polański dobrowolnie podda się ekstradycji?

autor zdjęcia: Rafał Guz

źródło: Fotorzepa

Roman Polański

źródło: Reuters

Roman Polański przed rozprawą w sądzie w Santa Monica (październik 1977 roku)

+zobacz więcej

Liczący kilkadziesiąt stron wniosek ekstradycyjny Amerykanie przekazali Szwajcarom w czwartek późnym wieczorem.

Według szwajcarskich władz Polańskiemu grozi w Stanach Zjednoczonych wyrok do dwóch lat więzienia. Jego prawnicy mogą jednak się odwołać od ewentualnej decyzji o wydaniu reżysera do Federalnego Trybunału Karnego, a następnie do Federalnego Sądu Najwyższego.

Herve Temime, jeden z adwokatów twórcy „Pianisty”, podkreślił, że jego klient zamierza walczyć o odrzucenie wniosku o ekstradycję. – Jeśli Roman Polański zdecyduje się na walkę, to może spędzić w szwajcarskim areszcie jeszcze mniej więcej rok. Na apelacje potrzeba bowiem czasu – przekonuje „Rz” Douglas McNabb, prezes McNabb Associates, czołowej amerykańskiej firmy prawniczej specjalizującej się w ekstradycjach.

– Od dziewięciu miesięcy do roku. Taki czas potrzebny jest na próbę obalenia wniosku ekstradycyjnego – szacuje z kolei Tamara Holder, szefowa firmy prawniczej z Chicago.

Niewykluczone więc, że adwokaci 76-letniego reżysera wkrótce zmienią strategię. Na taką decyzję może mieć wpływ choćby odrzucenie złożonego przez nich wniosku, by Polański oczekiwał na decyzję sądu w swoim szwajcarskim domu. Sędzia uznał bowiem, że ryzyko ucieczki jest zbyt duże.

– Jeśli procedury będą się przeciągać, to nie jest wykluczone, że Roman Polański dobrowolnie zdecyduje się na wyjazd do Stanów Zjednoczonych, gdzie wiele faktów przemawia na jego korzyść – powiedział Georges Kiejman, francuski adwokat reżysera, w wywiadzie dla Radia Europe 1. Podkreślił przy tym, że czas na emocje już minął i trzeba wreszcie doprowadzić do „uczciwego zakończenia tej sprawy”.

Według szwajcarskich władz Polańskiemu grozi w Stanach Zjednoczonych wyrok do dwóch lat więzienia

Później Kiejman łagodził swoją wypowiedź, podkreślając, że reżyser zamierza nadal stanowczo bronić się przed ekstradycją do USA. Ale media spekulują, że może to być sygnał zmiany strategii. – Zgoda na ekstradycję byłaby najszybszą drogą do załatwienia tej sprawy. Potencjalnie mogłaby również sprawić, że sędzia spojrzałby na Polańskiego łagodniej, niż gdyby do końca walczył o oddalenie wniosku o ekstradycję, przegrał i dopiero wtedy został przekazany Stanom Zjednoczonym – dodaje Douglas McNabb.

– Najpierw uciekł, potem się ukrywał. Jeśli teraz będzie uparcie walczył w Szwajcarii, to tylko rozwścieczy amerykańskiego sędziego, który może mu wówczas wymierzyć maksymalny wymiar kary. Polański niepotrzebnie traci czas i pieniądze – mówi „Rz” Tamara Holder. I podkreśla, że dla 76-latka nawet kilka lat więzienia może okazać się wyrokiem dożywocia, a sędzia w USA nie będzie wcale musiał wliczyć do wyroku miesięcy, które reżyser spędzi w szwajcarskim areszcie.

Polański, który został aresztowany w Zurychu 26 września, źle znosi rozłąkę z żoną Emmanuelle Seigner i dwójką dzieci (11 i 16 lat). Jedno z więziennych widzeń z najbliższymi Polański przeżył tak bardzo, że został przewieziony do szpitala w Zurychu.

Słynny reżyser przez ponad 30 lat był poszukiwany przez amerykański wymiar sprawiedliwości za gwałt na 13-letniej Samancie Gailey, którego dopuścił się w rezydencji Jacka Nicholsona.

Jacek Przybylski z Waszyngtonu

Masz pytanie, wyślij e-mail do autora:

j.przybylski@rp.pl

www.tamaraholder.com and www.xpunged.com

POLANKSI: UNDERLYING FACTS OF THE CASE NOT AN ISSUE, GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER CAN END THIS BY GRANTING PARDON

Roman Polanski (AP)

ADMONISHMENTS

On August 8, 1977, Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to one of six counts: unlawful sexual contact with a minor. Upon a defendant's plea of guilty, a judge is required to admonish the defendant of a multitude of rights and laws. The defendant is must, the record, verbally state he understands the admonishments.

On the day of Polanski's guilty plea, the prosecutor said he convinced the District Attorney to accept the plea agreement. The judge did NOT say he would agree to such an agreement between the parties.

The Honorable Laurence J. Rittenband admonished Polanski & Polanski stated he understood each admonishment such as:

* He understood he was giving up his right to confront witnesses (p. 9)
* He stated he was guilty of the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a female person under the age of 18. (p. 10)
* He understood he was pleading guilty to a felony (p. 11)
* He understood the maximum sentence was up to 20 years in prison (p. 11)
* "Mr. Polanski, who  do you believe will decide your sentence will be in this matter"; Polanski, "The judge."(p. 11)
* "Do you understand at this time the Court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive? Do you understand the court has not made any decision?" Polanski, "Yes." (p. 12)
* Since you are not a citizen of the United States, a possible sentence of your plea of guilty TODAY may be that you be deported and excluded from this county?" (12)

* Interestingly, the judge did not admonish the defendant of his right to withdraw his plea of guilty. Generally, the Defendant has 30 days from the date of his plea to do so. Polanski did not withdraw his plea of guilty.

Instead, after he was released from his 42-day stint in jail for a mental evaluation, he fled the country in fear of the judge's imposition of an additional sentence. Understand that he was not sentenced for the crime. He was ordered to complete an evaluation. The record does not reflect he was being sentenced but instead complied with a pre-sentence mental evaluation. I do not understand how people are confusing a pre-sentence investigation of sorts with a sentence!

As a defense attorney, it sounds like the prosecutor and the defense attorney spoke to the judge in his chambers and the judge said he wouldn't sentence him to additional time if the evaluation came back clean. Polanski's attorney probably conveyed this to his client, even though no agreement was ever stated on the record. This is a classic example how a judge can "forget"; discussions in chambers and can use the "It's not on the record" excuse to renege an agreement. I've been in conferences just like this where, at a later date, the judge doesn't remember the previous conversation and agreement. Interesting that the court file in Polanski's case is missing.

POLANSKI'S STIPULATION TO THE FACTS & FAILURE TO FILE MOTIONS

I respectfully disagree with certain writers, such as Gerald Posner, who go into great detail about the underlying facts of the case, witness availability and any other matters as they relate to the crime of 1977.Polanksi pleaded guilty to the charges, waived his right to confront witnesses and stipulated to the facts as they were read into the record.

Regardless of the possibility that the judge was going to renege his off-the-record agreement on the final sentence, Polanski's attorney did NOT file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Nor did they file a Writ of Habeus Corpus. As a result, Polanski waived his right to withdraw his plea of guilty. Since he filed no additional motions, the underlying facts of the case are not in dispute.

BEST OPTION FOR POLANSKI - SCHWARZENEGGER PARDON

I suggest Polanski does not fight extradition. Instead, I think the best thing for Polanski to do is come back to the United States and seek a Governor's pardon from California Governor Schwarzenegger.

The governor of the state where a state crime occurred, has the absolute power to pardon a person. Reasons for a pardon can be based on innocence or rehabilitation. Polanski clearly is not innocent of the crime.

Schwarzenegger can grant Polanski a pardon based on his rehabilitation and his extraordinary contribution to society since his 1977 crime.

 www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

ROMAN POLANSKI CASE SIMILAR TO ONE OF MY CASES - SHOWS ABSOLUTE POWER OF JUDGE AND PROSECUTORS

Roman Polanski (AP)This weekend, the Swiss arrested Roman Polanski, for possible extradition to the United States. In 1977, Polanski was accused of raping a 13-year old at Jack Nicholson's house after getting her drunk and drugging her with a Quaalude. 

Polanski Case

Polanski's defense attorney and the prosecutor worked out a plea agreement whereby he would plead guilty of one of six counts, unlawful sexual intercourse, and he would spend 42 days in prison.  After he was released, Polanski learned the judge would not agree with the agreed-plea, sentence him to additional time to prison and require him deported. As a result, Polanski fled to France where he has lived ever since. Article here.

My case

I currently represent a young man who was accused of sexually assaulting a few girls at an Illinois high school where he was their assistant track coach.

His defense attorney and the state's attorney - THE state's attorney, not the assistants - agreed to reduce the felony charges to misdemeanor battery. Just days before the plea agreement was to be presented to the judge, the state's attorney handed the case over to one of her assistants. Then, on the day the plea was to take place in court, the assistant state's attorney pulled the entire deal.

Thus, my client was forced to take the case to trial, unless he wanted to plead guilty to felony charges, which would guarantee his deportation. While the jury was deliberating, my client fled the United States because he suspected he would be found guilty. Interestingly, he was found not guilty on felony charges of sexual assault against two of the three girls. See Article here.

The Power of the Judge and State's Attorney Often Leaves Defendant Powerless

In both my case and the Polanski case, two people who were accused of a crime and who had reached an agreement with the prosecutors, were forced out of our country.

A very typical response is, "Good thing he fled! He needs to leave our country and never come back!"

But that's not the issue.

The issue is that we have a system where prosecutors and defense attorneys are allowed to work out deals in cases where a defendant is probably guily of some sort of illegal conduct but the state's case is probably not airtight. Think about it: if the guy is totally innocent, the defense attorney will take it to trial. Same for the prosecution: if the guy is clearly guilty and he was found with "blood on his hands" then the prosecution will not offer any plea deals.

Granted, a deal is revocable at any time and a judge always has the discretion whether or not to go along with a plea agreement. I completely respect a judge's discretion.

But, it's unfair when a person, who is a legal resident of our country, is offered a deal and then it is revoked, leaving him with no other choice but to flee.

It did not make sense for the men to stay. If he stayed and did his time, he would have been deported after he fulfilled his prison sentence. So why do the time and waste all those years in prison when you cannot stay in the country after you've done your time? What would you do? You would leave before you were placed in prison and go to your native country if you are safe from extradition the United States.

Unfortunately, the deportation laws give no discretion for people who actually contribute to society. Polanski has contributed immensely to America. My client had received his college degree and had been accepted to a fine university for graduate school.

Both men were accused of committing crimes that were clearly flawed; hence, the reason for the plea agreements. Had the plea agreements been accepted in both cases, both men would still be living in America with their friends and family and would be able to contribute to our society.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

JUDGE WHITE TO BRODSKY/PETERSON CIRCUS: GET DOWN OFF OF THAT TIGHTROPE - PRONTO!

Drew Peterson in Will County Custody (M Spencer Green)Will County Judge Stephen White called the curtain on the Peterson/Brodsky media circus. Article here. During the hearing, State's Attorney James Glasgow stressed to the judge his fear of Brodsky tainting the jury pool by his interviews with the media.

BRODSKY'S PRESSERS ARE OVER
This case is like none other I can remember in recent history: The media attention has not been around the case per se but mostly around the attention created by Joel Brodsky and Drew Peterson. It's literally like Brodsky is trying to sell tickets to a circus! The press releases, the interviews in NYC, the press conferences. So ridiculous! I have never seen an attorney use a publicist to issue a press release about his client's engagement to his live-in girlfriend. (I was actually in-studio when Glen Selig's press release of Peterson's engagement to Christina Raines came through the fax.) I have never seen an attorney do so many TV interviews with his client who has not been charged with a crime. To me, this is bad lawyering. How can an attorney put his client on TV knowing there's a chance he may say something incriminating? Remember when Drew was interviewed on Fox Chicago and Drew said he told his kids their mom is never coming home?!? An attorney should never encourage interviews of his client. In fact, an attorney is to tell his client, "Keep your mouth shut. I do not want to hear one word from you." (To compare, remember when Blago's stellar attorney Ed Gensen withdrew after Blago went on his media tour, contrary to Gensen's advice?)

NO MORE PETERSON JAILHOUSE GAME-SHOWS
The audacity of Drew Peterson to make a jail house call to a radio station and suggest a "win a conjugal visit with Drew"! Drews antics from inside the county jail have been despicable and make a mockery of the judicial system. Drew is an idiot. This is the kind of behavior that taints the jury pool. What radio listener wants to hear Douchebag Drew try to score a date? Then, Brodsky's going to cry "Change of Venue" even though he's the one who caused the jury pool to be tainted!

I often say, "Don't talk about it, be about it." Brodsky has one job: convince a jury that Drew is not guilty as charged. If he successfully completes that job, he and Drew can write as many books and do as many interviews as they please. But until then, shut up. And boy do I hope that day NEVER comes...

Now Brodsky is only left to play the Create Your Own Circus on the Ringling Bros. website. But I do wonder, can Drew walk the tightrope in cuffs? He does claim to be such a celebrated officer and badass.

www.tamaraholder.com and www.xpunged.com

Tamara on Fox Chicago Discussing the Bond Set in Case Against Chicago Police Detective Accused of Killing 2 in DUI Crash

www.tamaraholder.com and www.xpunged.com