« Might the Harris limit on Apprendi be at risk with O'Brien cert grant? | Main | Texas Governor Perry disrupts panel looking into Willingham capital case »
October 1, 2009
Former prosecutor thickens sentencing plot in Polanski case
The Polanski case continue to generate both buzz and news, and the latest comes from this AP story headlined "Former prosecutor says he lied about Polanski case." Here are highlights:A former prosecutor says he made up a story he told a film crew about advising a judge handling Roman Polanski's sex case to send the director to prison.
In "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," David F. Wells is depicted as conferring with a trial judge more than 30 years ago about Polanski's case. Wells said in the documentary that the judge took his advice in deciding to renege on a plea bargain and give Polanski additional prison time. "I made that up to make the stuff look better," Wells said. He also said he overstated his actions after being told the film would air in France, not the United States. The film aired on HBO.
Wells' statement on the documentary later became part of the basis for a move by Polanski's attorneys to dismiss the case against the fugitive director, who was arrested in Switzerland on Saturday....
In France, several government officials who had initially rushed to Polanski's defense were being more cautious on Thursday, stressing that the renowned filmmaker is not above the law.
Wells, who retired more than two years ago, did not handle Polanski's case but was assigned to the courtroom where it was heard and had frequent interactions with the now-deceased trial judge Laurence J. Rittenband. "They interviewed me in the Malibu courthouse when I was still a DA, and I embellished a story," Wells said about the film crew in an interview with The Associated Press Wednesday. "I'm a guy who cuts to the chase - I lied. It embarrasses the hell of me."
Wells said he was sorry about making the comments for the documentary. "I cost the DA's office a lot of money and aggravation over this," Wells said.
Polanski was accused of plying a 13-year-old girl with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a modeling shoot in 1977 and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy.
He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse; in exchange, the remaining charges were dropped, and the judge agreed to send Polanski to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. But Polanski was released after 42 days and fled the country for France before sentencing after the judge reportedly told lawyers he planned to add more prison time.
Polanski's attorneys later argued in a motion to dismiss the case that the communications between the judge and Wells were clear misconduct and violated Polanski's constitutional rights. That motion was dismissed because Polanski was a fugitive at the time, though the judge acknowledged "substantial misconduct" in the original case. The matter is now in the hands of an appeals court....
Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal. She testified at the time that Polanski forced himself on her - which he acknowledged in his guilty plea - but has said she forgives him and wants the ordeal to be over.
October 1, 2009 at 08:45 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20120a6078c2b970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Former prosecutor thickens sentencing plot in Polanski case :
Comments
"Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal. She testified at the time that Polanski forced himself on her - which he acknowledged in his guilty plea - but has said she forgives him and wants the ordeal to be over."
1. It would have been over years (or more likely decades) ago if Polanski had stayed around instead of jumping bail, and had served out his sentence.
2. The victim's forgiveness should be no more influential in provoking leniency than (in some different case) her anger should be influential in provoking harshness. There are reasons the law interposes itself between the feelings of the victim and the punishment imposed on the attacker. Most of the time, these reasons have to do with turning away from vigilante justice, something those in Polanski's corner might do well to remember.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Oct 1, 2009 8:09:44 PM
"The victim's forgiveness should be no more influential in provoking leniency than (in some different case) her anger should be influential in provoking harshness. There are reasons the law interposes itself between the feelings of the victim and the punishment imposed on the attacker."
So then the purpose of victim impact statements is what, theraputic venting?
Posted by: John K | Oct 2, 2009 11:50:11 AM
What the hell is going on with this guy Wells? There has to be a very interesting backstory here (that we will probably never know). I mean it's not like he made a simple misstatement, or simply denied something that he knew was true. He told a fairly specific story about something that happened 30 years earlier, which he now says is hogwash. Why and how did he go about making that up?? Why should we believe him now?
Also, how many people did this guy prosecute over the last 30 years? Did he lie to the court or defense counsel in any of those proceedings because it "seemed like a good idea at the time" (paraphrase of his comments about his supposed lie in the documentary)?
Posted by: Observer | Oct 2, 2009 12:28:55 PM
John K --
"So then the purpose of victim impact statements is what, theraputic venting?"
Yes, in part. For example, when a binding plea bargain calls for a sentence of LWOP, instead of the DP, venting is all that is left for the victim's family. Would you deny them even that?
Do you really think the victim's impact statement should control the sentencing? Would you think the same thing if, in a DP state, the victim's family is demanding capital punishment? Or are you taking the position that victim impact statements shoud have force only when they favor the convicted defendant? What principled view of the law woud support such a one-sided outlook?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Oct 2, 2009 3:03:01 PM
Bill, the statements shouldn't control sentencing nor should they influence it as much as it appears they often do...for the reason you so eloquently cited: "turning away from vigilante justice."
I don't say it much anymore because dwi hysteria is fully in the dna of most Americans these days, but having grieving mothers draft drunken driving laws never seemed like a good idea to me.
Still today I'd much rather take my chances with fellow motorists who stopped for a few beers on the way home rather than teens texting friends, women applying makeup or virtually anybody engaged in animated phone conversations.
Posted by: John K | Oct 2, 2009 5:05:36 PM
LOL i think we have bigger problems than worring aobut a 30+ year old case EVEN THE VICTIM wants dropped. Not to mention just when did we the US BECOME ABOVE THE LAW. This is NOT an american citizen and was NOT on AMERIAN SOIL. By what right do we order him seized. IF we had a right to him then it should have been made to FRANCE where he was living and is IN FACT A CITIZEN.
as for him leaving. GOOD FOR HIM. All the facts now show this judge was SLIME and a glory hound CROOK. I wont' even touch this joke of a lawyer. After what the judge pulled i'd have LEFT TOO.
Posted by: rodsmith3510 | Oct 2, 2009 5:12:40 PM
Javert is alive and well in L.A. ... and probably gearing up to run for higher office.
Only those lucky Americans who haven't witnessed the full rath of their justice system unleashed on someone they care about are likely to crow and thunder when someone like Polanski jumps bail after learning the fix is in even more powerfully than it usually is for citizens set upon by the government.
Polanski shouldn't be proud of what he did, but neither should L.A. prosecutors who fumbled and dallied for 30 years before aggressively "bringing him to justice."
Posted by: John K | Oct 2, 2009 6:18:56 PM
