The Swiss have decided not to extradite Roman Polanski to the United States. Per the NYT:
The stunning decision could end the United States’ three-decade pursuit of Polanski, unless he travels to another country that would be willing to apprehend him and weigh sending him to Los Angeles. France, where he has spent much of his time, does not extradite its own citizens, and the public scrutiny over Switzerland’s deliberations may dissuade other nations from making such a spectacular arrest.
The Swiss government said it had sought confidential testimony given on Jan. 26 by Roger Gunson, the Los Angeles attorney in charge of the original prosecution against Polanski. Washington rejected the request.
”Mr. Polanski can now move freely. Since 12:30 today he’s a free man,” Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf declared.
My guess is that the realpolitik here is that the U.S. was not really making it worth the Swiss’s while in other respects – often extraditions involve some external bartering – but who knows. I don’t know why they would need this confidential testimony. But the U.S.-Swiss extradition treaty – which you may find here – does allow considerable leeway to the Swiss authorities. I’m not sure if Polanski would be considered “convicted in absentia” – I think he was only sentenced in absentia – but in which case the Swiss can reject the extradition if they feel the rights of the person sought are not properly protected. (See art. 7.) The Swiss authorities are allowed to request further documentation in any event (art. 10), but I’m not sure that necessarily includes any documents about prosecutorial misconduct per se, which is perhaps why the United States refused to furnish the testimony.
Just got this in my news feed. Letting another rapist walk is not my idea of how to start a good week.
I am curious about what happened though. Did the Swiss authorities nab him in order to see what the US would have to offer in the first place? And if the US wanted Polanski, why would they say no to the confidential testimony? Or was that something the Swiss knew the US would have to say no to, thereby furnishing them with an excuse to let him go when they realized they weren’t going to get a good enough deal? Or was it all to do with something else entirely?
As we all know, the Swiss are shining models of justice for all the world. Just think of the way they bravely protect the rich with secret bank accounts and the way they generously helped the Nazis make profits off the victims of WWII. Not to mention their progressive stance on women, who, as I recall, were not allowed to vote until 1971.
A real bunch of sweethearts.
If this thread could not turn into a “Which country is the justice-est of all!” showdown, I would be very grateful.
(Read: I don’t want to bring Guantanamo into this.)
Anyone who saw the documentary or knows the history of this case also knows that this case was mishandled by the prosecution from the beginning–so I think the Swiss were justified in wanting to view the testimony. It should have been turned over for review and then Polanski should have been returned to the US to face justice.
I can only speculate that the secret testimony would have been very embarassing to the Los Angeles DA’s office and other parties in this case, including the presiding judge who may be dead unless I’m wrong. That’s no excuse, however, not to comply with the Swiss request. Justice was not served in this case and a convicted rapist has been allowed to go free once again.
According to what I heard on The BBC News Hour on NPR this morning, the Swiss were trying to ascertain exactly what Polanski’s sentence was supposed to be, and, failing to receive any clarification on the matter, decided to free him. I honestly think this is the LA court system fumbling the ball again.
charlemagne: I kind of think that legal opinions based on documentaries are weak. Prosecutorial misconduct is common to most legal systems I can think of; it’s a poor excuse not to extradite, especially because Polanski would have been entitled, in the United States, to see that confidential testimony, for absolute sure, and to use it in any defense he was preparing.
It could have been embarassing; it could have been that the Swiss refused to keep it confidential, which is another common reason why you wouldn’t turn over this kind of thing, if they wouldn’t agree to keep it under seal.
I’m not real clear, I’ve gotta say, on why it would be confidential anyway, but whatever.
As to “trying to ascertain the sentence,” Newt, again, if there are allegations of prosecutorial misconduct my guess is he can reopen the sentence issue. But I don’t know CA crim pro all that well.
Michelle–actually the documentary was quite informative and based on verbatim testimony and transcripts. If you saw it then you know the judge and state attorney engaged in ex parte communication and other inappropriate conduct. Those are not allegations, they are facts.
Having said that, I think Polanski ultimatley should have been returned to the US, but that the Swiss were not out of line in reviewing the case before extraditing him. Since the US would not provide the Swiss with the transcripts I think the Swiss government was left with little choice. I blame the decision makers in Los Angeles more than the Swiss for this debacle.
I’ve been headdesking ever since that popped up on my Swiss newsfeeds. Yeah, they’re probably in the right, legally speaking, but that just doesn’t make it RIGHT.
Especially since one of the things the justice minister stated was that Polanski’s been a ‘good guest’ in Switzerland so far, living without making problems in his fancy chalet… As if that entitles him to anything.
Having said this, I really would appreciate it if this discussion wouldn’t devolve into country-blaming. I’m fully prepared to look at the bad stuff my country does, but stones and glasshouses, okay?
Will Polanski’s host country feel better about his lovely behavior there if he’s caught with another teenager? If that happens, no one can say they weren’t warned. And this would apply equally to wherever he was-it’s not Switzerland bashing.
If, in fact, there was prosecutorial misconduct in LA, as it appears there was, then the changes would have to be dismissed eventually anyhow. It doesn’t appear that Polanski would get what he deserves under any legally sanctioned circmunstances.
What should happen is that he should be shunned by all decent people, but the industry has demonstrated that they define decency differently than the rest of us.
@mm: I don’t know that this is about the Swiss view of his behaviour as much as it is about Swiss bankers and tax issues, but I don’t have firm sources on that.
I think the funny thing here is that everyone fucked this up all to hell. That said, I don’t know WHY the man can’t just nut up and go to LA and face the music.
@charlemagneinsweats: there was testimony on the record of ex parte communications between the prosecutor and the judge? Wow. Bold.
@michelle: That’s what I don’t get. I mean I highly doubt that even if he came back here he would serve any time. Just a gut feeling I have. I think the man must just be paranoid after all these years and has convinced himself that he’ll be thrown in some super max prison for the rest of his life if he returns.
@Michelle: no, no, I didn’t mean Swiss behavior in particular, more wondering how any country would feel about a non-native who came in for a “visit” and ended up assaulting the locals.
When was the last time any of us saw someone on the run turn him or herself in? Sigh.
Blue- There was an interview “on the record” by prosecutor David Wells in which he admitted to urging the judge ex parte to reject the plea deal and give Polanski more time.
http://www.slate.com/id/2229853
Wells later said he lied about the conversation.
@charlemagneinsweats: Right. I mean, again, here is where it becomes difficult to re-try cases after 30 years.
Personally I have no idea if the prosecutor urged the judge ex parte to reject the plea deal. It’s within the realm of possibility although it makes no logical sense that he would do that. I have seen the documentary as well and I found it incredibly biased towards the defense. If you look at the actual available records in the case it looks as straight forward as any case of its time.
eta: ALSO, I’m sure any convicted felon could have a similar documentary made about the period between their arrest and eventual conviction.
This is very disappointing to hear. Time does not make a crime disappear! And I don’t even care if the victim doesn’t want him prosecuted now. It’s not about her, it’s about the sovereignty of our justice system; it is disgusting that a celebrity can get of the hook for a crime like this, no matter how long ago it occurred. Justice should know no time limits!
This whole case is just disgusting to me. People have really stopped caring about this and just want to put it behind them. I was so frustrated with my boyfriend when we discussed this last night. He was saying that even the victim was dropping charges and didn’t want to pursue the case, so why should anyone else? In what I’ve seen and read, a lot of raped and abused women *don’t* go through the whole trial (or even press charges) because it’s just too painful. And to ask that woman to continue, after over 20 years, to recount her rape is too much. I doubt she wants to always be known as the 13 year-old rape victim (or, on the other end, the slut who was asking for it, the Lolita who seduced who a rich person for profit, etc.) It just makes me sick to think that people get away with this, and worse. But particularly when that person is in the spot light and should be easy to find and bring to trial. I keep losing faith in humanity.
Documents relating to the ex parte discussions between judge and prosecutor are EXACTLY what the Swiss requested of the US. And I think it was legitimate of the Swiss to request them (surely on the motion of Polanski’s legal team). There is usually a ton of leeway and as Michelle says politics in extradition cases, and the Swiss could have decided to just respect the US decision and not request supporting documents, but it is also legitimate of them to request the documents to clarify what punishment would actually come down on Polanski after extradition and to see if his rights were violated by the prosecutorial misconduct in the case. I believe it is correct to blame this one on the LA judge and prosecutor fucking up the case. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that Polanski is so high profile and the misconduct was the subject of a documentary. But having handled many extradition cases, it is my experience that the Swiss in general block and limit extradition requests (to all kinds of countries, not just the USA) more often than most nations.
And Michelle, I know before I was talking about passage of time, but actually I was thinking about it more and I think it is not that compelling a reason in this case where he was already sentenced and they just want him to serve time. We use passage of time arguments in cases where the trial hasn’t happened yet because it is really hard to collect and confront evidence after 30 years and the chances of a fair trial after all that time are slim. However I am going to research its use in cases where extradition is for serving a sentence already passed, because I am a nerd like that!
Noticed this article from the Indie where a Swiss national pulls the old Nazi sympathizer card!
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-so-thats-ok-then-its-fine-to-abuse-young-girls-as-long-as-youre-a-great-film-director-2025067.html
I do think this is a case where politics and the high profile of the case worked in a rapist’s favor. If only courts were so sympathetic to my regular old clients facing extradition in far more shocking circumstances.
But JD I don’t understand what documents existed regarding ex parte communications? Like was it in the trial transcripts of the case? Or the prosecutors case file?
@JD: It’s been a long time since my PIL classes and in any event never thought much about extradition except to rage at U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain. So you’re the expert.
@all: I think it’s fair to say that there are a lot of complicating factors in the legal tangle here, including prosecutorial misconduct. I do not really think that the presence of some potential prosecutorial misconduct is a reason to refuse extradition assuming that, all other things being equal, the legal system in the requesting country protects the accused’s substantive/procedural rights to the same degree.
As for the victim, I think saying she doesn’t want to prosecute is also a poor reason for arguing for his release in this instance. I’m not surprised she doesn’t: when they arrested him the public debate was, again, immediately, “Well, she was kinda slutty and why didn’t she run and scream and…” But then the damage has been done on that score. And it looks like the fight if he came back would be less about the facts of the crime and more about the conduct of the trial. So.
I mean, obviously no one wants to go against the victim’s wishes. Though I think there’s some conflicting reports there, because I did see someone who I can’t find now quote her as saying she thinks he should come back and face things.
Bluebears, from what I understand (all from garbled media reports of dubious reliability), Polanski argued that under his plea agreement,(by judge or prosecutor, I don’t know)his 42 days in a secure psychiatric unit would complete his sentence and he would only be given probation, if anything. When the prosecutor dropped his end of the bargain, Polanski fled. The Swiss were asking for documentation about how the decision was made to change the sentence after the guilty plea, and the US refused to provide it. I find that European jurisdictions are extremely critical and suspicious of US plea bargaining arrangements from the get go, and since Polanski relied upon a belief that he would serve no jail time when he pled, I reckon the Swiss would argue that the sentence they are trying to impose now is arbitrary and not lawful, and therefore they won’t facilitate its enforcement.
Oh bluebears sorry I misread what you are asking! Sorry to go into exhaustive detail over things everybody understands. I don’t really understand what exact documents they were requesting either. However I will say I have found the US (and other countries requesting extradition) pretty beligerent in terms of refusing to give basic case details to defense.
sidebar – women in switzerland did not get the right to vote until 1971.
JD Regent- what you are saying soinds legalish but makes no sense. Judges don’t have to abide by any plea bargain because plea bargains are between prosecutors and the defense. Judged always have discretion to sentence whatever they like, although sometimes the defendant has the option of withdrawing the guilty plea if suddenly there are indications that the sentence will be harsher than expected. I don’t know if Polanski could have done that, but I do know he knew about judicial discretion because I read a portion of the plea transcript somewhere and he answered yes when the judge asked him more than once if he understood that the judge is not bound by the agreement. In any case, he bail jumped and that would affect the sentence, or nullify the agreement anyway. Plus, it’s a whole separate crime.