Kara Healey
Professor Jason Kirkmeyer
English 1010
12 October 2009
Roman Polanski: To Free, or Not to Free? That is the Question
On August 18, 1933 Raimund Polanski was born in Paris, France. Three years later, little Raimund and his parents moved to his father’s hometown of Krakow, Poland. Unfortunately, tragedy found the family in 1941 when both of Raimund’s parents were sent to Nazi concentration camps; his mother eventually dying at Auschwitz. Young Raimund stayed with several Polish families until his reunion with his father in 1944. As he grew, Raimund developed a love for creating movies and enrolled in the National Polish Film Academy in 1954. In 1968, after directing two successful films in Europe, Polanski married a popular actress named Sharon Tate and moved to Hollywood. Again, Polanski’s world was shattered when in 1969 his pregnant wife was murdered by the Charles Manson Family (“Roman Polanski – Biography”). After the incident, Polanski came to despise the media for the way they had portrayed his wife’s murder (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
After his wife’s death, Roman developed a reputation for being a partier and a womanizer (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired) and in 1977, was convicted of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl (Howell). On February 1, 1978 (Howell) – the eve of his sentencing – Polanski fled to Paris and has never returned (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired). Recently, on September 27, 2009, Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland on his way to the Zurich Film Festival and is currently being held in custody there awaiting extradition to the United States (“Polanski Arrested…”).
Since his trial in 1977, new evidence has come to light of corruption and mishandling of Polanski’s original case. This evidence, coupled with Polanski’s current age of 76 and background as a critically acclaimed director, has some people calling for Polanski’s release. Others believe Polanski should be brought back to the United States to face his crime and be punished. While the details of the Polanski saga are not always clear, what is clear is that Roman Polanski’s case history, court room proceedings, and moral decisions must all be examined and addressed to devise a solution that satisfies not only Polanski’s supporters, but also those who wish to see him atone for his crimes through the administration of the United States judicial system.
Roman Polanski’s case began on March 11, 1977 in Los Angeles, California, when he was arrested and charged with six counts of illegal conduct, including 1) furnishing a controlled substance to a minor, 2) committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child, 3) unlawful sexual intercourse, 4) rape by use of drugs, 5) perversion, and 6) sodomy. The victim’s name was Samantha Gailey, and the incident took place during a photo shoot at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in Beverly Hills. Nicholson was out of town at the time, but had given Polanski – who had been asked to “shoot photos of girls from around the world” for Vogue magazine – permission to conduct the shoot at his home. It was the second photo shoot Polanski had done with Gailey, and the two were let in to Nicholson’s home by the caretaker (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
According to testimony given by both Polanski and Gailey at the trial, after going inside the house, Polanski produced a bottle of champagne and a quaalaude tablet and offered them to Gailey. She took them. As Polanski was taking photos of the teen near the bay window, he asked her to remove her shirt, which she did “without hesitation” according to Polanski. He said he felt an “erotic tension” between them. Awhile later, Gailey stripped to the nude and got into the Jacuzzi. Polanski claimed there wasn’t enough light to take pictures in the hot tub, and they left the water and began to dry themselves and one another. Polanski testified that he then “very gently began to kiss and caress her.” Gailey testified that she told Polanski, “No, keep away,” but Polanski claimed that “she wasn’t unresponsive” and there was no doubt about her experience and “lack of inhibition.” Gailey told the court that she had felt dizzy and blurry, and she had trouble remembering parts of the experience. Roman Polanski never believed that he had broken the law by having sex with the teenager (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
Roman Polanski’s trial gained worldwide recognition. The American media portrayed the director as a villain, while the European press viewed Polanski as a victim of bad circumstances. Not surprisingly, the courtroom turned into a media frenzy (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
Laurence J. Rittenband – the senior judge in Santa Monica – presided over Polanski’s case. Rittenband had always taken special interest in celebrity cases and asked to be assigned to Polanski’s. It was well known that Rittenband loved the media and always had comments for the press when asked. Marilyn Beck, a Hollywood gossip columnist who spoke to judge Rittenband frequently, claimed that “he [Rittenband] liked being among the stars” (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired). Former public defender Michael Caine agreed saying, “I don’t know any judge that liked publicity as much as Rittenband did” (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired). He even went so far as to have his bailiff keep a scrapbook containing any newspaper article that mentioned Judge Rittenband’s name. Rittenband was also known for being a womanizer in public and a tough punisher on the bench (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
At the time of his arraignment, Polanski plead not guilty to all charges. Gailey’s attorney, Laurence Silver, tried to protect his client’s anonymity by attempting to arrange a plea deal. After the district attorney, Roger Gunson, refused Silver’s suggestion of a plea bargain, Silver went directly to Douglas Dalton – Polanski’s attorney. However, Dalton refused the idea, believing Polanski would be cleared of all charges. It was only after a pair of Gailey’s panties – a very damning piece of evidence – had been introduced into the case, that Dalton called Silver and agreed to negotiate for a plea deal. Roman Polanski would plead guilty to the lowest count of unlawful sexual intercourse, and his sentence would be based on the probation report and council arguments. Judge Rittenband accepted the plea agreement (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
At that time, the punishment for unlawful sexual intercourse was an indeterminate sentence, meaning the guilty party could be sent to a state prison for anywhere from six months to fifty years. However, Polanski’s probation report recommended no incarceration time and only “straight probationary sentences” for the esteemed director. Judge Rittenband decided to order Polanski to be examined by two psychiatrists to determine his soundness of mind, and that the sentencing would be determined after the psychiatric reports. On these terms, Polanski could have faced a number of sentences, including an assignment to a mental hospital, one year in county jail, fifty years in state prison, deportation, or probation (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
One of the psychiatrists who examined Polanski was Dr. Ronald Markman, who described Polanski as “a very congenial, yet somewhat reserved guy, who was very straightforward in the interview” (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired). He went on to say, “As experiences go, Roman Polanski has had more than what would impact on a dozen people… It was my opinion that Mr. Polanski did not qualify as a mentally disorder sex offender and should not be handled as such” (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
After receiving these psychiatric evaluations, Rittenband was still unsure of how to sentence Polanski and asked for advice from outside sources (an illegal practice for a judge.) Rittenband wanted to look good in the eyes of the media, so in order to give himself more time to think, the judge ordered Polanski to 90 days at California’s Chino State Prison for diagnostic observation. Legally, a diagnostic observation sentence is not to be used as punishment and is not a final sentence. Final sentencing follows the results of the observational period (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
Rittenband called Dalton, Gunson, and Silver to his office to hand down the Chino sentence. He told the attorneys, “I don’t want to send Mr. Polanski to county jail because I don’t want to be responsible if he were to be injured or killed.” Because Polanski was in the middle of filming, Rittenband told Dalton to apply for “stays”, or deferments, of the observational period in 90 day increments, and that he would grant the stays for up to a year. Rittenband thought that granting a 90-day stay would sound better to the press than a one-year deferment. He then told the attorneys to pretend to argue the case in open court – in other words, put on a show for the press – and that he would hand down the Chino sentence at the end. Rittenband told Dalton, “If you do not tell the press about this, and if Polanski receives a good report from the probation department, which we all are quite sure he will, that will conclude his punishment” (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired). So when it came time for court, Dalton argued for probation and Gunson for prison, even though the victim and her family asked for no incarceration time for Polanski (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
According to the details of his plea bargain, Polanski was allowed to travel out of the country. The distributor for the movie that Polanski was filming invited the director to Munich to discuss the movie and have some fun. While there, Polanski was photographed partying at Oktoberfest. It came as a surprise to Judge Rittenband and the attorneys, who believed that Polanski was in Paris filming. Enraged and embarrassed, Rittenband ordered Polanski back to the United States and refused to grant any more stays. Polanski was ordered to begin his observational period at Chino immediately (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
Authorities at Chino placed Polanski in protective custody. The director spent his time on cleaning detail and prepping for his new movie. After 42 days, Polanski was released with a recommendation for probation on his observation report. Rittenband read the report and declared it a “whitewash.” He once again called the attorneys to his chambers and announced that he would not keep his promise to release Polanski because he was receiving too much criticism from the media. Rittenband told Dalton that Polanski needed to make up the 48 days in custody that he missed by being released early, but when Gunson suggested 48 days in county jail Rittenband dismissed the idea, claiming that “the perception of a prison sentence” needed to be maintained for the press (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
Once again, Rittenband told the attorneys to put on a show for the press. Rittenband told Dalton that at the hearing, he would hand down the 48-day prison sentence, but that if Dalton would come back to the courtroom after everyone had left, he would recall Polanski and have him released. However, Rittenband would also have Polanski deported, and wanted the director to waive any rights he had to a deportation hearing. Judge Rittenband had no authority over matters such as these and was once again showing illegal conduct. “It is illegal to impose an illegal condition upon somebody serving time in custody,” said Dalton (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired). He told Rittenband that if he wanted to deport Polanski, there would be a deportation hearing. Judge Rittenband responded saying that if Dalton insisted on having a hearing, he would withdraw his promises of Polanski’s release. Feeling that he could no longer trust the judge, Polanski boarded a plane to Paris, France and never returned (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
In an interview, Stephen Trott, the Chief Deputy District Attorney, described why Polanski could not be extradited from France:
“The treaty [with France] only specifies, number one, rape. As you know, Mr. Polanski was not convicted of rape; he was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse and that’s a different crime than rape. Secondly, the treaty specifies that it’s discretionary on the part of France to return French citizens. In other words, they have an option. They can or they can’t, depending on how they feel about a particular case, or maybe even possibly, a particular person” (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
After Polanski’s flight to France, Judge Rittenband immediately held a press conference on the pending case, also illegal judicial conduct. Rittenband announced that he planned to sentence Polanski in absentia. Dalton immediately prepared a challenge to disqualify a judge. This requires that an attorney proves that a judge holds prejudices against his client and that a fair trial cannot be had before him. Dalton showed the declaration to Gunson, who said that he would attest to everything written there. Judge Rittenband removed himself from the case on February 24, 1978, but never admitted to any of the accusations (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
Everyone involved in the case agreed that Polanski had not received fair treatment. Gailey settled a civil suit with Polanski and publicly forgave him in 1997. That same year, Dalton and Gunson presented Polanski’s case to another Los Angeles superior court judge. The judge agreed that if Roman Polanski would return to the United States he would serve no more time in custody. However, Gunson and Dalton reported that the judge would want the proceedings televised. If so, Polanski refuses to participate (Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired).
Despite the plethora of evidence claiming that Polanski’s case was mishandled, many people still believe he should be punished. The pro-prosecution side claims that the rape of Gailey using drugs and alcohol has been widely overlooked by Polanski sympathizers. Not only was Polanski charged with the crime, he also pled guilty – another reason why he should be punished. They also point to the fact that Polanski’s 32 years in exile were spent at his multiple homes in Europe, continuing his movie career, winning an Oscar, remarrying, and fathering two children – hardly an unbearable punishment. They believe that Polanski’s story has been skewed by his sympathizers and that he should face justice because he broke the law; plain and simple (Harding).
While it is true that Polanski did not receive a fair trial the first time, I believe he should be returned to the United States to try to sort out the mess within the judicial system. If Polanski were to return, he would finally face sentencing for his 1977 crime. After the sentence was handed down, Polanski could file an appeal which may or may not be reviewed by an appellate court. If the case was reviewed, the court would either overturn Judge Rittenband’s earlier ruling or grant Polanski a retrial. However, because he skipped the country in 1978, if retried Polanski would be incarcerated for the duration of his retrial.
If he were to be found guilty again, Polanski’s current age would not play a role in the sentencing process. This is largely because a crime of manipulation over adolescence is not necessarily affected by the “aging out” – or maturing out of a behavior – process. Also, because he crossed international borders, Polanski would face new charges in federal court for evading justice. So while this course of action may appease the people who wish to see Roman Polanski face justice and his sympathizers who wish to see him treated fairly, it may also extend the Polanski saga because of the new federal charges he would face. Given the director’s advanced age, there is a good chance we may never see the resolution of Polanski’s case. One thing is for sure, the victim, Polanski’s family, and the rest of the world are waiting with baited breath to see exactly what will happen now that Roman Polanski has finally been caught.
Works Cited
Harding, Kate. "Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child." Salon.com 28 Sept. 2009. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 3 Oct. 2009.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.uwlib.uwyo.edu/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?rand=0.8579715754756315&cookieState=0&ipcounter=1&bhcp=1.
Howell, Peter. "Crime, Punishment and Roman Polanski." The Toronto Star 25 July 2008, Entertainment sec.: E04. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 3 Oct. 2009.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.uwlib.uwyo.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7495498899&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7495499302&cisb=22_T7495499301&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8286&docNo=14.
Morton, James. "Opinion: Celebrities and Juries." Journal of Criminal Law 69.5 (2005): 365. EBSCOhost. Web. 5 Oct. 2009.
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.uwlib.uwyo.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18367720&site=ehost-live.
"Polanski Arrested in Connection with 1970s Sex Charge." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. 27 Sept. 2009. Web. 05 Oct. 2009.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/27/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/index.html.
"Roman Polanski - Biography -." Biography.com. Web. 05 Oct. 2009.
http://www.biography.com/articles/Roman-Polanski-9443411.
Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. Dir. Marina Zenovich. Perf. Roman Polanski and Mia Farrow. Antidote Films, 2008. ITunes. 2009. Web. 4 Oct. 2009.