Roman Polanski arrested in Zürich

[The Minsky Moment]

...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.

[Martinus]

It may depend on what state she lives in now, but it would look just great if the rape victim was thrown in jail for contempt of court...

How could it depend on her state of residence?

I think the mere threat of prosecution for contempt would void her unwillingness to testify (if she can be compelled at all), given that the latter is based on her desire to just end all of this.

I don't think it is unfathomable to have a law stating that a victim of rape cannot be compelled to testify.

[Duque de Bragança]

It would be entirely reasonable to assume he meant the French government which doesn't sound unsympathetic to Polanski when one sees things like this:

Well that is the "Minister of Culture" who naturally is going to have his priorities skewed towards culture.

Culture = assraping teenage girls?

Don't worry, that minister is more into Thai young boys.

[ulmont]

It may depend on what state she lives in now, but it would look just great if the rape victim was thrown in jail for contempt of court...

How could it depend on her state of residence?

Because California ordinarily doesn't have the power to compel New York residents to appear before it?

This is a pretty common concept; if you look at the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a federal district court can only compel people who are either in the district, within 100 miles of the courthouse, or within the entire state if the state lets their own courts get away with that, barring another statutory provision.

[The Minsky Moment]

Because California ordinarily doesn't have the power to compel New York residents to appear before it?

There is a procedure for this in criminal cases - a uniform act which most of the states have adopted and provides for reciprocality.

Criminal rules with respect to subpoenas are different from civil in this respect - for example the Federal Criminal Rules allow subpoenas to be issued anywhere in the US whereas the FRCivP as you point out has the 100 mile rule.

[ulmont]

There is a procedure for this in criminal cases - a uniform act which most of the states have adopted and provides for reciprocality.

Ah, nice.

[Agelastus]

Well, I am not sure to be honest - there are so many conflicting accounts. My understanding is that he entered a plea bargain that was then rejected by the judge - but he was never found guilty, formally, by the grand jury. Could any US lawyer who actually knows details of the case explain what really happened?

My understanding is that, unless he enters a new plea bargain, he needs to be found guilty in order to be sentenced for the underage sex thing.

The judge never rejected the plea.  I honestly have no idea how the procedure will work now if he is succesfully extradited back to Cal.  I don't know if there is a mechanism that would allow him to withdraw the plea given the passage of time.   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.

However, the case on flight seems to me very rock solid and that can carry as much as 1 year.

I'm starting to hate you guys - do you know how much time it takes to trawl a thread for a specific post.

Anyway, as per Grumbler -

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.

I think that answers the above - I don't believe this has been invalidated by the passage of time. Finding 12  men and women sufficiently unbiased (possibly not the right word) to be able to serve on a jury after all this time could be hard though, as was posted a couple of pages back.

[CountDeMoney]

Finding 12  men and women sufficiently unbiased (possibly not the right word) to be able to serve on a jury after all this time could be hard though, as was posted a couple of pages back.

I disagree. There's plenty of Americans who don't know what fucking time it is.  And we're talking California Americans, a whole different breed of Amerimoron.

[Agelastus]

Finding 12  men and women sufficiently unbiased (possibly not the right word) to be able to serve on a jury after all this time could be hard though, as was posted a couple of pages back.

I disagree. There's plenty of Americans who don't know what fucking time it is.  And we're talking California Americans, a whole different breed of Amerimoron.

As a non-American, I stand corrected.

In breaking news, according to BBC Ceefax, the French government is dropping its support of Polanski, due to the backlash it has received for its stance from non-Polanski supporting members of the elite.

[CountDeMoney]

In breaking news, according to BBC Ceefax, the French government is dropping its support of Polanski, due to the backlash it has received for its stance from non-Polanski supporting members of the elite.

Meh, they'll back another kiddierapist somewhere else.

[CountDeMoney]

You know, for all the bullshit it's worth, Polanski will most likely do more time between the incarceration awaiting extradition and the 1 year for the flight from justice charges than he would have if he simply did the rest of the time per the plea agreement.

And there was no indication that the judge was going to set aside the plea agreement...Polanski skipped out on the belief that the judge would, and there's no evidence that it would've happened, as the judge allowed all but one of the charges to be dropped.

Dummies always make shit worse when they run.

[Ed Anger]

Polanski needs some attention from a K-9 like on Cops. Like when the one dude tried to hide under a kiddie pool.

[CountDeMoney]

Oh, and for all the time-travel bullshit involving the victim, then and now, from Eugene Robinson--

Much has been made of the fact that Polanski's victim, now 45, has said she no longer feels any anger toward him and does not want to see him jailed. But it's irrelevant what the victim thinks and feels as a grown woman. What's important is what she thought and felt at age 13, when the crime was committed.

[Barrister]

...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).

[Barrister]

Dummies always make shit worse when they run.

QFT