LOS ANGELES, Dec. 2, 2008

Fugitive Polanski Wants To Come Home

Director Convicted Of Sex Charge Says 2008 Documentary Exonerates Him

  • Polish director Roman Polanski wants to return to the United States, 30 years after pleading guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl and fleeing the country. Photo

    Polish director Roman Polanski wants to return to the United States, 30 years after pleading guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl and fleeing the country.  (AP)

(CBS/AP)  Lawyers for Roman Polanski, a fugitive for 30 years in a notorious sex case involving a 13-year-old girl, filed a request Tuesday to dismiss the charge against him because of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.

The motion alleges that a documentary about filmmaker released earlier this year revealed "a pattern of misconduct and improper communications" between the district attorney's office and the judge in Polanski's case.

"This case serves as a classic example of how our justice system can be abused, and defendants' rights trampled, by an unholy alliance between courts and criminal prosecutors," said a statement from attorneys Chad Hummel and Brad Dalton. Dalton is the son of attorney Doug Dalton, who represented Polanski in the original case.

Poland-born Polanski, 75, has been living in France in self-imposed exile from the United States since fleeing in 1978 after pleading guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in Los Angeles. He was initially indicted on six felony counts and faced up to life in prison. Instead, he pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and five other counts were dismissed.

Polanski, who had already been incarcerated for a psychological diagnosis, skipped sentencing that would have sent him back to prison and fled to France. The judge issued a warrant for his arrest that is still in effect. The maximum sentence was 50 years, although prosecutors had said at the time that the typical sentence was 16 months to three years in prison.

Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for District Attorney Steve Cooley, said her office had not been served with the motion and only heard about it through media reports. She said the office could not take a position until they see the legal papers.

"We're looking forward to seeing Mr. Polanski in Los Angeles to litigate it," she said.

A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Jan. 21 in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Polanski, the director of "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby," has continued to direct films while in exile, including the 2002 Holocaust drama "The Pianist," for which he won the best-director Academy Award.

The woman with whom Polanski admitted having sexual intercourse has said she wants the charge dropped and that Polanski should be allowed to return to the United States.

The new effort to wipe out the charge comes in the wake of an HBO documentary, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" in which the man who prosecuted Polanski, retired Deputy District Attorney Roger Gunson, said that if he had been in Polanski's position, he also would have fled the country.

The documentary also portrayed the late Superior Court Judge Laurence J. Rittenband as a publicity hound who held press conferences and engaged in extra-judicial meetings about the case and received coaching from David Wells.

The case was a sensation when it broke. Polanski, the widower of Manson family murder victim Sharon Tate, was arrested for having sex with the girl he hired as a model for a photo shoot. He was accused of giving her Quaaludes, taking her into a hot tub nude and having sex with her.

© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report

Video and Galleries from Entertainment

Add a Comment See all 54 Comments
by beader59 December 2, 2008 7:45 PM PST
Did he have *** with a 13-year old or not. If he did, then stay away. I always hate it when a criminal gets off on a technicality and not the issue of being guilty or not guilty. I still feel sorry for hin for the loss of his wife Sharon Tate. That was such a tragedy for him and her family and her fans.
Reply to this comment
by p1tey1 December 2, 2008 7:54 PM PST
If he sets foot in the United States, he should go DIRECTLY TO JAIL and be held over for trial! I was shocked when The Pianist won the oscar in 2003. That film should not have been shown in America in my opinion. I remember the now grown woman in the case saying she just wanted to put it behind her, but he committed a crime and should face a judge and jury!
Reply to this comment
by marcparella December 2, 2008 8:01 PM PST
I don''t know, let the bast*rd in. He could make it up by having *** with 95 year old.
Reply to this comment
by orsand December 2, 2008 8:45 PM PST
If he wasn''t guilty-then why did he flee? We all know with the amount of money he had to pay for a top notch legal team-he could have beat the charge if there was even a slight chance he was innocent. He ran because he had committed this crime and he knew he would be convicted.
This dirtbag should consider himself extremely lucky that he has never had to account for his actions and has been free all these years. His trying to use a legal technicality years later smacks of one more self indulged and self centered, rich aging sociopath that continues to believe that he is above the law and/or that it doesn''t pertain to someone of his importance and stature.
Perhaps someone could tell him that there is a group of guys in Las Vegas that are trying to find a buyer for some of his personal effects and memorabilia and he could be drawn into returning illegally. OJ needs a cell partner.
Reply to this comment
by lanawonders December 2, 2008 9:57 PM PST
If he comes back here, I would like to see him thrown in jail, then paroled when eligible, then forever registered as a *** offender.
Reply to this comment
by andrew_693 December 2, 2008 10:12 PM PST
senator craig didn''t serve a day in jail after soliciting a cop, Florida republican, Mark foley didn''t serve any time for proposing *** with minors I don''t see why this guy should a serve a single day in jail, and after all the woman in question wants the charges dropped meaning she wasn''t nowhere near being raped. I think this is simply a witch hunt by a conservative scumbag working in the court and trying to set an example.
Reply to this comment
by mrathell December 2, 2008 11:00 PM PST
He drugged and rapped a 13 year old girl. It doesn''t matter what the prosecutor or judge were doing. Rapanski should still serve his time.
Reply to this comment
by rsmik December 3, 2008 12:34 AM PST
Polanski admits that what he did was wrong legally, but he still sees no problem with it morally, which is creepy but besides the point. The case now is about injustice regarding his sentence, not justice regarding his crime. It has all become a farce, time to drop it.
Reply to this comment
by summarex December 3, 2008 12:55 AM PST
Sure
Let''s dismiss the charges and let him come back to America. Then we re file the charges and put his *** in jail. Of course we give the guy a break for all he''s been through after that animal killed his wife. But he should serve a year or two in a jail. Despite the best efforts of the industry he belongs to, a thirteen year old is still very much a minor.

Reply to this comment
by whitecat151 December 3, 2008 1:16 AM PST
"This case serves as a classic example of how our justice system can be abused, and defendants'' rights trampled, by an unholy alliance between courts and criminal prosecutors," said a statement from attorneys Chad Hummel and Brad Dalton

-----------

I''d rather think that this case represents a classic example of how some kind of sexual pervert can try to prove that the victim can be abused, and the victim''s rights can be trampled, by an unholy alliance of imagined self righteousness and a willingness to ignore responsibility for someone''s own depraved sexual desire.

How many of you actually get that?


Regards,

WC
Reply to this comment
by shanev137 December 3, 2008 4:38 AM PST
What is the statute of limitation on this?
Reply to this comment
by dmotte December 3, 2008 5:42 AM PST
Some of you people are total idiots. The girl now a woman wants the charges dropped and him back in the country. She probably enjoyed it as much as Roman did and wants another shot in the sack.
Reply to this comment
by juwboy December 3, 2008 5:43 AM PST
shanev137:

If he`s already pleaded guilty to unlawful s-e-xual
intercourse with a minor, I don`t believe the statute of limitations would be applicable to his situation.

Clarification from a QUALIFIED legal scholar would be helpful (not from an AMATEUR lawyer).
Reply to this comment
by luckygirl042 December 3, 2008 6:22 AM PST
Oh, so he forced a 13 year old to have s&x with him, then he didn''t want to go to jail where someone might force him to have s&x? That sounds about right. He can stay in France.
Reply to this comment
by vcofreason December 3, 2008 6:52 AM PST
What''s really sick is that all these years, countless millions have seen his films and praised him. Just because time has gone by, doesn''t make what happened any less horrible. I''ve heard all sides that she was a seductress and she lied about her age. Bull! No 13 year old girl is capable of making those kinds of decisions. He drugged her and raped her. He should NEVER be let back unless he''s going straight to prison.
Reply to this comment
by silverstar06 December 3, 2008 7:39 AM PST
Maybe him and Woody Allen will make great home buddies!
Reply to this comment
by irreverent1-2009 December 3, 2008 8:22 AM PST
10 days in prison in a cell across from Charles Manson where they can both can reflect on their past life.
Reply to this comment
by barbaraf4 December 3, 2008 8:54 AM PST
No 13 year old girl is capable of making those kinds of decisions. He drugged her and raped her. He should NEVER be let back unless he''s going straight to prison. Posted by VcofReason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are some very provocative 13 year olds out there. And yes, many make this decision everyday. What they lack are the problem solving skills to cope with what happens next (pregnancy, STDs, AIDS, whatever).

The fact that this behavior exists doesn''t make it right for an adult male to take advantage of it; however, would we then say it is okay for a 13 year old male to take advantage of it?
Reply to this comment
by libsh8theusa December 3, 2008 10:19 AM PST
France is a good place for this loser!! STAY THERE..
Reply to this comment
by credibility2 December 3, 2008 10:20 AM PST
Once a pedophile, always a pedophile and how the system presumably worked or didn''t work definitely doesn''t excuse this low-life from his disgusting criminality.
Reply to this comment
by mydiatribe December 3, 2008 11:12 AM PST
Forgiveness for Senator Larry Craig?
Forgiveness for Rep. Barney Frank?
Forgiveness for Governor Spitzer?
Forgiveness for Woody Allen?
No forgiveness for Roman Polanski?
What is this all about?
Polanski has more real talent than all the rest combined.
Come on, I say he''s suffered enough, let him come home.
Reply to this comment
by December 3, 2008 11:15 AM PST
The fact that this behavior exists doesn''''t make it right for an adult male to take advantage of it; however, would we then say it is okay for a 13 year old male to take advantage of it?

Posted by barbaraf4

It''s never right for any man of any age to drug and rape a woman of any age. It doesn''t matter if he or she was 13 or 30. It''s still a vulgar, horrible crime that he PLEAD GUILTY for. He needs to go to prison.

I am literally disgusted by anyone that can defend his actions.
Reply to this comment
by December 3, 2008 11:16 AM PST
Come on, I say he''''s suffered enough, let him come home.

Posted by mydiatribe

No. Once he''s been drugged and gang raped in prison, then he''ll know what real "suffering" is. His victim has had to bear those scars her whole life. It''s his turn.
Reply to this comment
by dagrandma December 3, 2008 11:49 AM PST
"He made a big mistake, but it wasn''''t rape or murder."
Posted by AnitaY417

Anita: Drugging a 13-year-old and then having *** with her isn''t rape??????
Reply to this comment
by dagrandma December 3, 2008 11:52 AM PST
Some of you people are total idiots. The girl now a woman wants the charges dropped and him back in the country. She probably enjoyed it as much as Roman did and wants another shot in the sack.
Posted by dmotte

It''s just too bad she''s not your daughter. Maybe then you''d feel a little differently.
Reply to this comment
by sassalin December 3, 2008 11:59 AM PST
mydiatribe,

How can you say this man has suffered. He has never gone without food, clothing, medical care, or a roof over his head. He was never beaten or abused. How can you defend his actions?

He is still making money and films and lives in a free country.

He has never suffered and to say he has is stupidity.

He commited a crime and PLEAD GUILTY. He should serve the pruishment and get over it.

Grow up. There are real people in this world that suffer each day and he is not one of them.
Reply to this comment
by czmdm December 3, 2008 12:03 PM PST
dagrandama you are dumber than davicar. Do you think if a guy robs a bank the bank president can tell the FBI he wants the charges dropped? BS!!! You cannot drop felony charges, especially those of someone who committed a felony. I am sure this woman wants the thing dropped, because every time it''s brought up the case shows that she was an idiot.

Roman...stay in France. It is full of chitheads.
Reply to this comment
by mydiatribe December 3, 2008 12:05 PM PST
Not dimishing this crime in the least, but it was a very long time ago. The girl now a woman wants this case dismissed. Sure sounds like it was consensual *** with a minor, which is actually statutory rape, not the same as mean spirited assault type of rape. (There is a BIG difference.)
In light of what we know teenagersare capable of now-a-days (Teen murders being tried routinely as adults)
This case has very obvious political implications.

Some people are so fixed on meeting out PUNISHMENT they lose all their perspective on the actual gravity of the crime committed.
Reply to this comment
by dagrandma December 3, 2008 12:06 PM PST
dagrandama you are dumber than davicar...
Posted by czmdm

czmdm -- No, YOU are dumber than davicar. I was quoting someone else''s post and responding to it.
Reply to this comment
by czmdm December 3, 2008 12:07 PM PST
Statute of limitations. What a bunch of dumb a$$es. There is no statute of limitations on a conviction, only the prosecution.
Reply to this comment
by platteman December 3, 2008 12:23 PM PST
Let him come back, then take him to the hospital and remove his organ so that he can never do it again.

then throw his butt in prison and let Bubba be his daddy for a while.

Let him squeal like a pig in prison.
Reply to this comment
by czmdm December 3, 2008 12:27 PM PST
"His victim has had to bear those scars her whole life. It''''s his turn.''

I agree that he should go down or stay out of the states, but this girl suffering...read up on the case, the girl was well known as a young *** making her way around L.A.. So I don''t care about her. I do care about a guy thinking it is ok to give quaalude and booze to a 13 year old no matter what kind of trash she is.
Reply to this comment
by hatemorons December 3, 2008 12:55 PM PST
Roman Polanski is one of the great filmmakers of all time; his talent is enormous, his influence universal. Yet he is barred from our nation''s sanitary shores. Those of you who speak ill of him are nothing more than a pack of talent-free, barbaric yelping animals ravenous for blood--you can scarcely call yourself human beings. Get some culture and some education and leave your mobile homes long enough to see an intelligent film or two.
Reply to this comment
by mydiatribe December 3, 2008 12:56 PM PST
MrNrgmizer -- Guess you don''t know what you don''t know? Frank''s roomate a Congressional Page was running a prostitution ring out of Barney''s Apartment As usual Barney didn''t know. There is a lot that Barney doesn''t know. Apparently he slipped a noose on it anyway. Etc., etc., etc. They all get away with it because in time they drop off the front page.
Polanski is no differenct but he fled after cxonviction, A VERY SMART MANUEVER - BTW to avoid more jail time. Bottom line this is a travesty of justice. Learn the facts before you comment???
Reply to this comment
by mydiatribe December 3, 2008 1:05 PM PST
BTW WoodyAllen''s offense was far more egregious since the girl he married use to be his adopted daughter. I believe that constitutes CHILD ABUSE INCEST! How much jail time did Woody Allen do?
ANS: None!
Reply to this comment
by prometheus41 December 3, 2008 1:06 PM PST
"His victim has had to bear those scars her whole life. It''''''''s his turn.''''

It is a little hard to imagine that she feels the same way considering her feelings on his guilt and prosecution. But where this stinks to the rotting core, is the violation of equal protection under the law statutes -- there are a lot of people who have been convicted and sentenced and lived a lot worse doing the same thing Polanski did or less.

I would find it hard to believe that if he returned to California to appeal his conviction, that he wouldn''t or shouldn''t be immediately locked up until his court date, and then regardless of the success of the appeal, he would still have to serve time for obstruction of justice and fleeing the initial conviction without pursueing due process of appeal while being imprisoned, like EVERYONE ELSE of lesser stature would have to do.

Which reminds me, does anybody know WHY THE *** Ted Stevens is still walking around, voting, running for the office of Senator of Alaska, and plain doing whatever the *** he wants outside of prison, while waiting for sentencing on a conviction? I was totally unaware that you federal law states that you actually don''t serve any time for a crime UNTIL ALL YOUR APPEALS have been exhausted IF you were previously a Senator of Alaska.
Reply to this comment
by dagrandma December 3, 2008 1:24 PM PST
"Roman Polanski is one of the great filmmakers of all time; his talent is enormous, his influence universal. Yet he is barred from our nation''''s sanitary shores. Those of you who speak ill of him are nothing more than a pack of talent-free, barbaric yelping animals ravenous for blood--you can scarcely call yourself human beings. Get some culture and some education and leave your mobile homes long enough to see an intelligent film or two."
------------------------------------------------------
Posted by hatemorons

Roman Polanski is a child molestor. That''s pretty much all I need to know.

Now, if you''ll excuse me, I think I''ll take my talentless, barbaric, yelping, cultureless, under-educated a$$ home to my double wide and watch Old Yeller for surely, as God is my witness, only a dumba$$ living in a trailer would believe Roman Polanski should be in jail.
Reply to this comment
by honestabe8 December 3, 2008 1:29 PM PST
MyDiatribe: The woman that Allen married was of legal age.
Reply to this comment
by dagrandma December 3, 2008 1:31 PM PST
With regard to Woody Allen, I believe Soon Yi was an adult when they began their affair. The two of them married when she was in her late twenties. I don''t see how you can compare the two cases.
Reply to this comment
by mydiatribe December 3, 2008 1:42 PM PST
Some people are unable to perceive REAL HARM vs. narrow legalistic interpretation.
Sadly this IS LIKELY a reflection of their intelligence. Now I got nothing against Grandmothers who live in trailer parks.
HOWEVER, Roman Polanski although he may have once been a weak man with a BIG out of control libido; he deserves a second chance even more than WOODY ALLEN.
Reply to this comment
by December 3, 2008 1:59 PM PST
A comment was made that we should "read up on the case" before passing judgment. I have read the transcripts... I know that''s why I feel so passionately about the lack of justice. Even "young ***" are entitled for protection. And as an apparent moron that "has no culture"... at what point does talent allow criminal behavior? For example, two actors are arrested for murder. One is a nobody, but one has multiple Oscars. Because of the talent the Oscar winner has, do you feel,"hatemorons", that that person should go free?
Reply to this comment
by runningralph December 3, 2008 2:01 PM PST
AnitaY417 says she thinks Polansky has suffered enough having had to live in France for 30 years. What''s wrong with France? France is a civilized country with good food and a good movie industry. What suffering? Polansky is an escaped criminal. And don''t tell me there is a movie that exonerates him. A movie can be made to "prove" any side of any question. If he has some new evidence to present let him present it to an appellate court. The Los Angeles DA says they are looking forward to it. Meanwhile, he is an escaped convict.
Reply to this comment
by December 3, 2008 2:02 PM PST
You can give someone a second chance, sure. But they should pay for the crime first. He has jail time to make up for. Once that debt is repaid, direct away.

I just don''t see a comfortable life surrounded by people that worship your genius as "suffering". Since when is living in France "prison-like"?
Reply to this comment
by hatemorons December 3, 2008 2:33 PM PST
Genius trumps "morality"--the great artist exists in a realm beyond good and evil.
Reply to this comment
by mydiatribe December 3, 2008 2:37 PM PST
Where are those liberal California Supreme Court Justices when you really need them?
ANS: No Glory - No Guts! The LA DA''s office is POed because Polanski skipped town to avoid more jail time.
This is a personal vendetta that the right Judge could fix in a heartbeat. Why hasn''t it been done?
ANS: ROMAN POLANSKI was marginalized by Hollywood Insiders years ago, and he has had some success over seas. No one is willing to champion him because this case is a political football, too risky to fumble.
Polanski finds himself a weak old man who is outside looking in.
He is in bad need of a Legal Eagle Rabbi with some political clout who will stand up for him. Until that happens he is afraid to come home.
Probably what he ought to do is come back face the music, do a few moths in prison and quietly let someone pardon him.
Polanski would be the most worthy PARDON PRESIDENT BUSH could deliver before he exits but he won''t do it. The criticism would be too great.
Reply to this comment
by mrmeatspin December 3, 2008 4:41 PM PST
hey why not?? the liberals had managed to condition society to accept this kinds of acts..

soon enough it would legal to screw a 12 year old..
Reply to this comment
by mrmeatspin December 3, 2008 4:43 PM PST
The new effort to wipe out the charge comes in the wake of an HBO documentary, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" in which the man who prosecuted Polanski, retired Deputy District Attorney Roger Gunson, said that if he had been in Polanski''s position, he also would have fled the country.


*********the liberal media LOVES TO give out a helping hand to a needy liberal god..*********

Reply to this comment
by questionnews December 3, 2008 4:52 PM PST
Generally, people that give a pass on such disgusting crimes are people that visualize themselves doing the same thing if given a chance. Some of the post are quite revealing.
Reply to this comment
by tincup356 December 3, 2008 5:41 PM PST
fair justice costs money ..so no matter how big the crime,,,,,money can buy you out if you know the right people, or if you have executive privilege, which is what Bush thinks is protecting him from repeatedly breaking the law.
Reply to this comment
by runningralph December 3, 2008 6:02 PM PST
hatemorons calls Polansky a genius. Polansky didn''t figure out DNA or relativity or quantum mechanics. He is a MOVIE director! Not a scientist, physicist, mathematician or even an engineer. Directing a movie is on a level with managing a construction project. Writing the movie takes more smarts. And the notion that intelligence is an excuse to commit crimes is particularly disgusting.
Reply to this comment
See all 54 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
Latest News
Featured Blogs