Free the coerced felons!
Attorneys pitching for the dismissal of the Polanski case are awaiting a decision from the 2nd Appellate Court (Appeals) on a couple of legal fine points.
Specifically, the high-profile barristers argued in their briefs that a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge erred when he denied a motion to dismiss Polanski's criminal case in recent days.
The director's legal eagles convinced the Judge in the lower court (Judge Peter Espinoza) that there had been substantial misconduct during the course of Polanski's trial.
But, in the end scenario, the circumspect jurist threw up his hands in frustration - and summarily denied the motion - because he felt his hands were tied.
In denying the moving papers, the bench-warmer noted that he was bound by legal precedent, and on the grounds of fugitive disentitlement.
The Judge was relying on an old doctrine that dates back to the 1800s which stipulates - in essence - that defendants who flout the law by fleeing a jurisdiction cannot then call upon the court after-the-fact for help.
On the heels of the ruling, Polanski's lawyers filed an appeal on the issue, which is subject matter of the higher court's review.
The Justices agreed to take the case (many are denied review for a myriad of reasons) and proceeded to order the lower court to explain its ruling, the basis for the decision, and so forth and so on.
Yesterday afteroon, pursuant to Appellate Court procedure, both parties (defendant's lawyers & the prosecutor's legal team) appeared at an "Oral Argument" where they were asked to clarify the issues verbally.
The Polanski counsel didn't mince words.
They forcefully reiterated that Judge Laurence J. Rittenband (the Judge in the original rape case about three decades ago) improperly held discussions with the prosecutor about how to punish the film director.
The lawyer also drew attention to the alleged misconduct of Rittenband.
Polanski's reps argued at the hearing that he crossed the line when he threatened to lock up Polanski for a longer period if his attorney challenged his decision.
Sounds like judicial misconduct to moi!
But the proper forum for that charge to be addressed is at the Commission on Judicial Performance (based in San Francisco).
Because the alleged prosecutorial and judicial misconduct was so "alarming" (in their opinion), they urged the Justices to overturn the lower court ruling denying the motion to dismiss because the issues go beyond the Polanski case.
In a nutshell, the legal experts maintained that it was imperative the 2nd Appellate Court take action in the interests of maintaining the integrity of the state criminal justice system
Meanwhile, the opposing side scoffed at a legal notion they viewed as a dishonest underhanded attempt to free Polanski at any cost.
In a brief (filed with the court prior to oral argument) the city prosecutor stressed that Polanski's allegations of wrongdoing in the legal system were matters of convenience for the desperate film director.
"It is not his desire to have the case formally end because of concerns for the integrity of the judicial system. His ultimate goal is to have the case dismissed," they argued quite vigorously.
Although Polanski's lawyers may be grasping at straws, in the final analysis, they're just doing their job.
In the final analysis, it will all boil down to who is "on point", and a proper interpretation of the law.
May the best judicially-correct team win!
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment