> I think much of the outrage is over the misconduct of the prosecutor and
> judge during the trial. As I recall they basically reneged on a plea
> agreement and Polanski fled. It's all detailed in the HBO documentary, Roman
> Polanski: Wanted and Desired. One can fault the judge for offering a plea
> deal that was too lenient, but that isn't Polanski's fault. Add tot that,
> the victim, Samantha Geimer settled with him in a civil suit and called for
> the criminal case to be dismissed. So the government appears to be the only
> party with an axe to grind here.
As an attorney who makes his living trying to help criminal defendants who want to challenge their convictions or sentences, I have to say that I'm totally baffled as to how he can claim that the judge changing his mind on the plea agreement is relevant. The Smoking Gun transcript is pretty clear that the judge was free to ultimately reject the plea agreement and that Polanski could withdraw his plea if that happened. (Tp. 16). So, instead of withdrawing his plea and exercising his right to a trial, he decides to bolt. My guess is the judge saw what he did, called bullshit on the DA for offering him such a sweetheart deal, and Polanski freaked out and ran.
I don't practice in CA, so this may just be informed speculation, but what makes this case interesting is that if the judge _did_ reject the plea agreement then it looks like Polanski should still be able to withdraw his plea and go to trial today -- that's what all the cases on guilty pleas I'm aware of suggest and what the transcript itself says. Since the only witness to the material facts seems to be an uncooperative victim, I think the state will have a lot of trouble pursuing its case against Polanski at trial. If there was a subsequent hearing prior to his flight to Europe, that might change things -- I dunno. By their nature, all guilty plea cases are dogs when it comes to postconviction relief, and Polanski's (like Larry Craig's) doesn't look like any exception.
As sex offenses go, this one looks awfully strong: the victim is an adolescent; she reported quickly; she has no clear motivation for lying or history of lying; nor does anyone around her seem to have a motivation for coaching her to lie; and the details of her story are believable and compelling. There are guys doing what are effectively life sentences this instant on far far far flimsier evidence. It is truly shocking how little it takes to convince a jury to lock someone up forever -- and for an appellate court to uphold the verdict and sentence.
-WD