News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Roman Polanski arrested in Zürich

Started by Syt, September 27, 2009, 07:46:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

CountDeMoney

Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2009, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2009, 01:07:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2009, 12:53:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2009, 12:38:54 PM
...If there is some way he can pull that off, he might be in good shape assuming the victim actually holds to her statement that she would not testify against him.
She can be compelled to testify, just like any other witness, can she not?

In theory yes.  In practice, it is not likely because (a) it looks really bad politically for the prosecutor to be "victimizing" the victim, and (b) it is hard to try a criminal case where your principal witness is hostile and uncooperative.  Such witnesses are prone to sudden memory losses for example.

If you do domestic violence prosecutions, compelling unco-operative and hostile witnesses is your bread and butter.  It's unusual to get a fully co-operative witness.

Even on rape charges, a reluctant witness is not at all unusual.  A colleague of mine was just dealing with a full-on violent rape by a stranger in the bushes, but the witness was still very reluctant and scared and the Crown did have to resort to a witness warrant at one point in the proceedings (she was fully co-operative at the end of the day however).

Which is why the State of Maryland takes over the prosecution without the testimony of the victim.

Don't want to testify against hubby?  Fine.  The polaroids of you we took at the hospital will.

Barrister

There are good policy reasons to be able to compel a witness to testify, by the way.

If it is entirely up to a witness to testify or not it leaves the door wide open to all kinds of abuses, namely the witness being vulnerable to threats and intimidations, or to the witness being able to extort some kind of cash settlement in exchange for non-testimony.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Eddie Teach

To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Caliga

0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points

CountDeMoney

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2009, 07:14:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2009, 06:55:45 PM
Dummies always make shit worse when they run.

Tell that to D.B. Cooper.

Impaling oneself on a tree from 20,000 feet isn't exactly making things better.

jimmy olsen

Quote from: Caliga on September 30, 2009, 07:14:39 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2009, 07:14:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2009, 06:55:45 PM
Dummies always make shit worse when they run.

Tell that to D.B. Cooper.
Doubtful Seedy knows where he is. -_-
They never found the body, but it's a pretty sure thing that he died in the jump right?
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

Eddie Teach

They're only saying that so there's less criticism for not having caught the guy. ;)

Besides, we all know he died trying to break out of prison with Scofield and Burroughs. :tinfoil:
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Agelastus

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 30, 2009, 07:17:30 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 30, 2009, 07:14:39 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2009, 07:14:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2009, 06:55:45 PM
Dummies always make shit worse when they run.

Tell that to D.B. Cooper.
Doubtful Seedy knows where he is. -_-
They never found the body, but it's a pretty sure thing that he died in the jump right?

What I've read on the subject has tended to be fairly even handed as to whether he survived or not. Personally, I think he survived, but without a body or a fugitive, there's no way to be certain either way.
"Come grow old with me
The Best is yet to be
The last of life for which the first was made."

CountDeMoney

DB Cooper gets his own thread, ladies.

Keep it there before I slip you half a 'Lude and fuck you in the ass because you're not on the pill.

DontSayBanana

I feel like throwing this out there because I'm surprised one of the lawtalkers hasn't done so already: Polanski took a plea bargain; a plea bargain is just another recommendation from the prosecutor to the judge.  The judge handling Polanski's case was retiring and, according to legend, not in a mood to accept the plea deal, so he was going to send it to trial anyway and throw the maximums at him upon conviction.

It would be different if he was tried in absentia, but if he was tried in absentia and then extradited back here, it would actually go back for trial again because of his constitutional right to face his accusers.

So, effectively, Polanski was not convicted.  Also, the people throwing around the timeline of what happened that night are actually making it harder to have him extradited and retried, since it would be very difficult to prove there wasn't a bias against the defendant.
Experience bij!

CountDeMoney

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 30, 2009, 07:49:20 PM
I feel like throwing this out there because I'm surprised one of the lawtalkers hasn't done so already: Polanski took a plea bargain; a plea bargain is just another recommendation from the prosecutor to the judge.  The judge handling Polanski's case was retiring and, according to legend, not in a mood to accept the plea deal, so he was going to send it to trial anyway and throw the maximums at him upon conviction.

The lawtalkers haven't thrown this out because there's nothing short of conjecture about it.  "According to legend" doesn't wash.

QuoteIt would be different if he was tried in absentia, but if he was tried in absentia and then extradited back here, it would actually go back for trial again because of his constitutional right to face his accusers.

So, effectively, Polanski was not convicted.  Also, the people throwing around the timeline of what happened that night are actually making it harder to have him extradited and retried, since it would be very difficult to prove there wasn't a bias against the defendant.

You didn't read his plea bargain transcript I posted, did you?  You know, where he waives the right to trial and face his accuser?  That one.

grumbler

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 30, 2009, 07:49:20 PM
I feel like throwing this out there because I'm surprised one of the lawtalkers hasn't done so already: Polanski took a plea bargain; a plea bargain is just another recommendation from the prosecutor to the judge.  The judge handling Polanski's case was retiring and, according to legend, not in a mood to accept the plea deal, so he was going to send it to trial anyway and throw the maximums at him upon conviction.

It would be different if he was tried in absentia, but if he was tried in absentia and then extradited back here, it would actually go back for trial again because of his constitutional right to face his accusers.

So, effectively, Polanski was not convicted.  Also, the people throwing around the timeline of what happened that night are actually making it harder to have him extradited and retried, since it would be very difficult to prove there wasn't a bias against the defendant.
I am not sure what your point is, here.  Polanski wasn't "convicted" because he pled guilty.  The judge accepted the plea.  All that was left was the sentencing hearing.  The judge did leave open the possibility that he might, upon reflection, turn the plea bargain down, in which case Polanski could retract his plea and the case would go to court.  There was no evidence other than some hearsay that the judge was not going to accept the plea (though he did indicate at one point that he wanted Polanski to serve the full 90 days in the original plea, which I believe was enough to get Polanski deported).  The judge certainly stepped over the line when telling the prosecuting and defense attorneys what they were going to say at the sentencing hearing - he apparently liked to stage-manage these things and assign people their lines, given that everyone knew how the story would end.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

C.C.R.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2009, 07:53:53 PM
You didn't read his plea bargain transcript I posted, did you?  You know, where he waives the right to trial and face his accuser?  That one.

You might want to consider re-posting it a couple of more times so that people can still not read it...

Admiral Yi

Question for the shysters: say the judge doesn't accept the plea.  It's still the prosecutor's discretion what charges to try him on, right?  There's no way the judge can force the prosecutor to charge him with any other crime, is there?

Also, is a plea agreement a legally binding contract?  Does a prosecutor that welches on a deal face any harm besides that to his reputation?

DontSayBanana

Sorry. I misphrased it. Polanski took the lesser charge on the basis that he wouldn't get the maximums for the charge. Page 8 of the transcript is where he presumably realizes he was screwed- note the pause when the prosecutor asks him who would have the final say in his sentencing. The judge was looking for the full monte and his answers sound a lot less confident when he gets the "MDSO" bit thrown at him and gets told that he could be in a treatment facility for however long they wanted to keep him there, regardless of the length of the prison sentence.
Experience bij!