Sexual abuse case::Roman Polanski sexual abuse case


Polanski::title    October::roman    First::states    Times::would    Court::united    Arrest::france

Sexual abuse case On March 10, 1977, Polanski, then aged 43, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Jane Gailey<ref>page 3 of transcript via Roman Polanski, Fugitive Director 10 June 2008 at TheSmokingGun.</ref> (now Samantha Geimer).<ref name=autogenerated5>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref> A grand jury charged Polanski with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor,<ref name="autogenerated2"/> which ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.<ref name="Harding Reminder"/>

According to Geimer's testimony to the grand jury, Polanski had asked Geimer's mother (a television actress and model) if he could photograph the girl as part of his work for the French edition of Vogue,<ref name="Britt2003-03-28">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref> which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. Geimer testified that she felt uncomfortable during the first session, in which she posed topless at Polanski's request, and initially did not wish to take part in a second, but nevertheless agreed to another shoot. This took place on 10 March 1977, at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles. At the time the crime was committed, Nicholson was on a ski trip in Colorado, and his live-in girlfriend Anjelica Huston who was there, left, but later returned while Polanski and Geimer were there. Geimer was quoted in a later article as saying that Huston became suspicious of what was going on behind the closed bedroom door and began banging on it, but left when Polanski insisted they were finishing up the photo shoot.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there."<ref name="Ryan2003-03-20" /> In a 2003 interview, she recalled that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and described how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this".<ref name="Sage2009-09-280">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref>

Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }} {{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B= {{#invoke:Category handler|main}}{{#invoke:Category handler|main}}[dead link] }} 2003 archive</ref> and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her,<ref name="GJTpp18-32">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref name="31 Years">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref> each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.<ref name="Harding Reminder">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }} {{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B= {{#invoke:Category handler|main}}{{#invoke:Category handler|main}}[dead link] }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }} {{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B= {{#invoke:Category handler|main}}{{#invoke:Category handler|main}}[dead link] }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }} {{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B= {{#invoke:Category handler|main}}{{#invoke:Category handler|main}}[dead link] }}</ref>

Although Geimer has insisted that the sex was non-consensual, Polanski has disputed this.<ref name=autogenerated3>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref><ref name="Thorpe2008-12-07">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref> Under California law, sexual relations with anyone under the age of 14 is statutory rape.<ref>{{CHAPTER 1. Rape, Abduction, Carnal Abuse of Children, and Seduction [261 - 269] ( Chapter 1 enacted 1872. )

269. (a) Any person who commits any of the following acts upon a child who is under 14 years of age and seven or more years younger than the person is guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child:

}} </ref> Describing the event in his autobiography, Polanski stated that he did not drug Geimer, that she "wasn't unresponsive", and that she did not respond negatively when he inquired as to whether or not she was enjoying what he was doing.<ref name="Polanski1984p393">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=book }}</ref> The probation report submitted to the court concluded by saying that there was evidence "that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing."<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref>

Claiming to protect Geimer from a trial, her attorney arranged a plea bargain.<ref name="Romney2008-10-05"/> Polanski accepted, and, under the terms of the agreement, the five initial charges were dismissed. Instead, Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.<ref name=autogenerated4>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref>

Conviction and departure

Under the terms of the plea agreement, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he traveled to Europe to complete filming.<ref name="Goodwin2008-04-13">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref> Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days.<ref name="Ryan2009-10-01">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref> Polanski's lawyers had the expectation that Polanski would get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, with the probation officer, examining psychiatrist, and the victim all recommending against jail time.<ref name="Cieply2009-10-03">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref> The documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired alleges that things changed after a conversation with LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells and the judge, Laurence J. Rittenband. Polanski's attorneys assert that the judge suggested to them that he would send the director to prison and order him deported.<ref name="Palmer2009-09-28" /> In response to the threat of imprisonment, Polanski bought a one-way ticket to England and fled the United States.<ref name="Allen2009-10-01" />

Shortly after Polanski fled, Rittenband denied he ever did anything that the 2008 documentary would go on to allege, by issuing the following statement:<ref></ref>

"I then stated that an appropriate sentence would be for Mr. Polanski to serve out the remainder of the 90-day period for which he had been sent to Chino, provided Mr. Polanski were to be deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Bureau, by stipulation or otherwise, at the end of the 90 days. I expressly stated that I was aware that the court lacked authority to order Mr. Polanski deported directly or as a condition of probation. However, based on the facts before me, I believed that the safety and welfare of the citizens of California required that Mr. Polanski be kept out of circulation for more than 90 days. However, since Mr. Polanski is an alien who had pleaded guilty to an act of moral turpitude, I believe that the interests of the citizens of California could be adequately safeguarded by a shorter jail term if Mr. Polanski would thereafter absent himself from the country."

Polanski fled initially to London on 1 February 1978, where he maintained a residence. A day later he traveled on to France, where he held citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the United States by Britain. Consistent with its extradition treaty with the United States, France can refuse to extradite its own citizens,<ref name="Dyer2009-09-29">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref> and an extradition request later filed by U.S. officials was denied. The United States government could have requested that Polanski be prosecuted on the California charges by the French authorities.<ref name="test13">"A Roman in Paris", Roman Polanski Media Archive</ref> Polanski has never returned to England, and later sold his home there. The United States could still request the arrest and extradition of Polanski from other countries should he visit them, and Polanski avoided visits to countries (such as the UK) that were likely to extradite him and mostly travelled and worked in France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland.{{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B= {{#invoke:Category handler|main}}{{#invoke:Category handler|main}}[citation needed] }} In 1979, Polanski gave a controversial interview with the novelist Martin Amis in which, discussing his conviction, he said "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!"<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref>


Geimer sued Polanski in 1988, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction.<ref name="cbsnews1">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref> The case was settled out of court in 1993. After Polanski missed an October 1995 payment deadline, Geimer filed papers with the court, attempting to collect at least US$500,000. The court held that Polanski still owed her over $600,000, but it was unclear as of 2009 if this had since been paid.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref>

In a documentary for A&E Television Networks entitled Roman Polanski (2000), Samantha Gailey Geimer stated "…he had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that, and really I just tried to let him get it over with." She also claimed that the event had been blown "all out of proportion".

In a 2003 interview,<ref name="Ryan2003-03-20">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref> Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it." In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever – besides me – and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."<ref>,1036,polanski-victim-pleads-forgiveness,30539</ref>

In 2008, a documentary film of the aftermath of the incident, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. Following review of the film, Polanski's attorney, Douglas Dalton, contacted the Los Angeles district attorney's office about prosecutor David Wells' role in coaching the trial judge, Laurence J. Rittenband. Based on statements by Wells included in the film, Polanski and Dalton sought judicial review of whether the prosecutor acted illegally and engaged in malfeasance in interfering with the operation of the trial.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref> However, after Polanski's arrest, David Wells recanted his statements in the film admitting that he had lied and "tried to butter up the story to make me look better".<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref>

In December 2008, Polanski's lawyer in the United States filed a request to Judge David S. Wesley to have the case dismissed on the grounds of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The filing claims that Judge Rittenband (now deceased) violated the plea bargain by keeping in communication about the case with a deputy district attorney who was not involved. These activities were depicted in Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref> In January 2009, Polanski's lawyer filed a further request to have the case dismissed, and to have the case moved out of Los Angeles, as the Los Angeles courts require him to appear before the court for any sentencing or dismissal, and Polanski did not intend to appear. In February 2009, Polanski's request was tentatively denied by Judge Peter Espinoza, who said that he would make a ruling if Polanski appeared in court.<ref>Judge: Roman Polanski must return to U.S., MSNBC, 22 January 2010</ref><ref name=cnn2009feb>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref> The same month, Samantha Geimer filed to have the charges against Polanski dismissed from court, saying that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family.<ref name="geimerdismissal">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref> Judge Espinoza also stated there was misconduct by the judge in the original case but Polanski must return to the United States to actually apply for dismissal.<ref name=detained>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref>

There is no statute of limitations governing the case because Polanski had already been charged and pleaded guilty in 1978 to having had unlawful sex with a minor.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref> A complicating issue for resolution of the case is that failure to appear is in itself a crime.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=news }}</ref>

On 7 July 2009, Polanski's attorneys filed a petition for a writ of mandate (the California equivalent of a writ of mandamus) with the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal in order to seek review of Judge Espinoza's decision on an expedited basis.<ref name="docket">Docket for Case Number B217290, California Courts Appellate Case Information System.</ref> The next day, the Court ordered the prosecution to file an opposition, thus indicating that it was assuming jurisdiction over the case.<ref name="docket" /> This was unusual; petitions for extraordinary writs are usually summarily denied without any explanation.<ref>Science Applications International Corp. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. App. 4th 1095 (1995). In this case, the Court of Appeal explained: "We deny the vast majority of petitions we see and we rarely explain why. In reality, perhaps the most fundamental reason for denying writ relief is the case is still with the trial court and there is a good likelihood purported error will be either mooted or cured by the time of judgment."</ref>

Roman Polanski sexual abuse case sections
Intro  Sexual abuse case  Arrest in Zurich  Legal actions  See also  References  External links  

Sexual abuse case
PREVIOUS: IntroNEXT: Arrest in Zurich