For the first time since his arrest several weeks ago, Roman Polanski has broken his silence, and reached out to his supporters.
The director, currently under house-arrest in Switzerland awaiting possible extradition to the U.S. to face sentencing for rape charges, facilitated the web site of a friend and confidante (Bernard-Henri Levy) yesterday to thank a posse of friends, fans, and business associates for sticking by him during a traumatic rough patch in his life (triggered by his recent arrest in Switzerland).
Polanski, however, was mum about the recent court proceedings in the 2nd Appellate Court.
For good reason!
Neither he nor his lawyers - the prosecutors even - appeared to be too thrilled with the decision handed down by the Justices in the Court of Appeal.
If you recall, the celebrated film director sought to overturn a lower-court ruling in recent days which denied his motion to dismiss the rape case outright on grounds of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct when the case was first tried about three decades ago.
I reported on that earlier court matter, if you recall.
Post: 12/11/09
http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2009/12/roman-polanskijustices-review-age-old.html
In sum, the prosecutor's office vigorously argued that binding legal precedents dictated that Polanski was barred from the relief he sought because he fled the court's jurisdiction rather than face sentencing a handful of years ago.
Surprisingly - the Justices seized on another argument that was even more compelling - which won out in the end.
The court acknowledged there was some credence to Polanski's claims of unfair treatment and judicial misconduct - and recommended therefore - that the incarcerated director urge the court to hear the matter in abstentia (without the necessity of his presence at the U.S. Court hearing) to resolve the dangling dilemmas plaguing the final resolution of the case issues.
In the event Polanski opts to go the route recommended by the Justices, he is required to pen a letter to the court of jurisdiction, and request that the case go foward in his absence.
In view of the director's failure to respond to date, it would appear he is either reluctant to seek that option, or just weighing his options before taking action.
News at 11!
No comments:
Post a Comment