Roman Polanski arrested in Zürich

[Neil]

Debra Winger was super hot.

[Agelastus]

Let's tear up all these Hollywood leftists stars off the Walk of Shame. Honestly, Harrison, defending a brutal child rapist? Lowered my opinion of him quite a bit. Then again, since he turned 60 hes been going through some weird end of life crisis so maybe he views fucking young girls as a means of preserving ones youth.

He seems to be more into doing anorexic chicks than young ones....

I don't keep up with my celebrity gossip...haven't for twenty years or so - who's the anorexic chick in this case, given the number of candidates the modern world throws up?

[crazy canuck]

Usually you argue bias if you're trying to get the judge thrown off the case.  I'm not sure how much utility these is in playing the bias card when the judge is already dead.

[garbon]

I think this thread shows that Languish posters just do not have tools to deal with the rarest and most bizarre behavior of all in online debates: admitting that one is wrong.

Most people, like grumbler, just refuse to acknowledge it, and repeat their last disagreement over and over in a vain hope of generating a familiar response.

I thought it was because what you said when you were "mistaken" was utterly reprehensible.  It is hard for people to forget that.

[Barrister]

The flight carries max 1 year.

The sentencing on the original conviction is up in the air.  Presumably Polanski will get the opportunity to pursue his bias claim re the now dead original judge.

From what I've read, the "bias" issue stems on the ex parte discussions of the judge at the time and the prosecutor;  apparently it's a long shot to dismiss charges based solely on ex parte discussions of 2/3rds of the party, particularly AFTER the plea agreement.

Usually you argue bias if you're trying to get the judge thrown off the case.  I'm not sure how much utility these is in playing the bias card when the judge is already dead.

Assuming the bias card goes no where, what happens to the plea agreement? Would a judge respect the agreement, or be likely to be much more harsh because of flight.

Flight negates the plea agreement.  Hell generally any new charges (like flight) will negate a plea agreement.  Depends how strictly it is worded, if it's worded at all.  Most of our plea deals are done verbally, but sometimes it gets written down in great detail.

[alfred russel]

The flight carries max 1 year.

The sentencing on the original conviction is up in the air.  Presumably Polanski will get the opportunity to pursue his bias claim re the now dead original judge.

From what I've read, the "bias" issue stems on the ex parte discussions of the judge at the time and the prosecutor;  apparently it's a long shot to dismiss charges based solely on ex parte discussions of 2/3rds of the party, particularly AFTER the plea agreement.

Usually you argue bias if you're trying to get the judge thrown off the case.  I'm not sure how much utility these is in playing the bias card when the judge is already dead.

Assuming the bias card goes no where, what happens to the plea agreement? Would a judge respect the agreement, or be likely to be much more harsh because of flight.

Flight negates the plea agreement.  Hell generally any new charges (like flight) will negate a plea agreement.  Depends how strictly it is worded, if it's worded at all.  Most of our plea deals are done verbally, but sometimes it gets written down in great detail.

But he still gets stuck with the guilty plea? If he gets extradited, he will show up for sentencing for the one crime he admitted, with the judge using whatever sentencing guidelines were in place in the 1970s, plus have to stand for a flight charge?

[Barrister]

But he still gets stuck with the guilty plea? If he gets extradited, he will show up for sentencing for the one crime he admitted, with the judge using whatever sentencing guidelines were in place in the 1970s, plus have to stand for a flight charge?

First the usual disclaimer - I'm not licensed to practise law in California.  This is all based on my own experience.

It depends where they're at in the process.  Did they merely have a deal, but nothing had been done?  Or had some steps been taken to implement the deal (namely: had he entered the guilty plea in court yet).

If the guilty plea has been proferred he's probably stuck with it.

[Sheilbh]

I think that's my favourite cat pic so far

[alfred russel]

But he still gets stuck with the guilty plea? If he gets extradited, he will show up for sentencing for the one crime he admitted, with the judge using whatever sentencing guidelines were in place in the 1970s, plus have to stand for a flight charge?

First the usual disclaimer - I'm not licensed to practise law in California.  This is all based on my own experience.

It depends where they're at in the process.  Did they merely have a deal, but nothing had been done?  Or had some steps been taken to implement the deal (namely: had he entered the guilty plea in court yet).

If the guilty plea has been proferred he's probably stuck with it.

Good info, thanks. 

This is all going to be lame if he is extradited and spends 80 days in jail.

[grumbler]

I think this thread shows that Languish posters just do not have tools to deal with the rarest and most bizarre behavior of all in online debates: admitting that one is wrong.

Most people, like grumbler, just refuse to acknowledge it, and repeat their last disagreement over and over in a vain hope of generating a familiar response.

I think your post shows that you just don't have the tools to realize that you still haven't admitted that you were wrong on the single issue I gigged you on:  your assertion that the girl's virginity was significant in Polanski's guilt.  You have merely said that you want to move past that post, but you haven't acknowledged the phenomenal stupidity of your original position.  You have merely tried to shift the debate to the characters of those who pointed out how red your ass was on that one.

Keep flopping, Marti.  Frankly, you are more amusing as a flopper than you would be if you were honest.

[Faeelin]

I'm bored, and don't wanna read 26 pages. So can someone sum it up and tell me who defended a man who drugged and forced himself on a thirteen year old girl?

[Admiral Yi]

I'm bored, and don't wanna read 26 pages. So can someone sum it up and tell me who defended a man who drugged and forced himself on a thirteen year old girl?

France, Anne Applebaum,  and Whoopi Goldberg.

[grumbler]

It depends where they're at in the process.  Did they merely have a deal, but nothing had been done?  Or had some steps been taken to implement the deal (namely: had he entered the guilty plea in court yet).

If the guilty plea has been proferred he's probably stuck with it.

There is a transcript of his guilty plea made in court (and it includes the information that he knew fully well that she was thirteen).  The judge makes it clear, though, that if the court decides not to accept the plea bargain, then Polanski could withdraw his plea of guilty and go to trial with the presumption of innocence.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm bored, and don't wanna read 26 pages. So can someone sum it up and tell me who defended a man who drugged and forced himself on a thirteen year old girl?

France, Anne Applebaum,  and Whoopi Goldberg.

And Martinus, until about page 19.

[Razgovory]

I'm still shocked that he fled over 48 days after doing 48 days.