Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland on 31-year-old warr..

Schlockhack · External Since: Apr 17, 2007 Posts: 87

http://news.aol.com/article/zurich-film-festival-says-director-roman/6...43?icid|htmlws-main|dl2|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fzurich-film-festival-says-director-roman%2F689143

My comment: the victim herself has stated she doesn't want to see him
in jail ... the judge in the original case offered a plea bargain and
then reneged ... I don't think this serves justice.

MC · External Since: Jan 06, 2005 Posts: 4169

In article <h9nt0h$8pp$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Schlockhack <Sarema DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:

> http://news.aol.com/article/zurich-film-festival-says-director-roman/689143?ic
> id=main|htmlws-main|dl2|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fzurich-fil
> m-festival-says-director-roman%2F689143
>
> My comment: the victim herself has stated she doesn't want to see him
> in jail ... the judge in the original case offered a plea bargain and
> then reneged ... I don't think this serves justice.

He acknowledged his wrongdoing at the time and was ready to accept
punishment, but that judge plainly set out to railroad him.

--

"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones

Skipper · External Since: Jan 19, 2009 Posts: 22

In article <h9nt0h$8pp$1@reader1.panix.com>, Schlockhack
<Sarema.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:

>
> http://news.aol.com/article/zurich-film-festival-says-director-roman/689143?ic
> id=main|htmlws-main|dl2|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fzurich-fil
> m-festival-says-director-roman%2F689143
>
> My comment: the victim herself has stated she doesn't want to see him
> in jail ... the judge in the original case offered a plea bargain and
> then reneged ... I don't think this serves justice.
>

Take a look at what he did to her. Read the facts of the case. The
judge did nothing illegal.

Wordsmith · External Since: May 01, 2007 Posts: 113

On Sep 27, 10:56 am, Skipper <skipSPAMpr... RemoveThis @yahoo.not> wrote:
> In article <h9nt0h$8p...@reader1.panix.com>, Schlockhack
>
> <Sar... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> >http://news.aol.com/article/zurich-film-festival-says-director-roman/...
> > id=main|htmlws-main|dl2|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fzurich-fil
> > m-festival-says-director-roman%2F689143
>
> > My comment: the victim herself has stated she doesn't want to see him
> > in jail ... the judge in the original case offered a plea bargain and
> > then reneged ... I don't think this serves justice.
>
> Take a look at what he did to her. Read the facts of the case. The
> judge did nothing illegal.

I say give the guy a whopping fine and leave him be.

W

Paul Valois · External Since: Jan 14, 2009 Posts: 40

Skipper wrote:
> In article <h9nt0h$8pp$1@reader1.panix.com>, Schlockhack
> <Sarema.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> http://news.aol.com/article/zurich-film-festival-says-director-roman/689143?ic
>> id=main|htmlws-main|dl2|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fzurich-fil
>> m-festival-says-director-roman%2F689143
>>
>> My comment: the victim herself has stated she doesn't want to see him
>> in jail ... the judge in the original case offered a plea bargain and
>> then reneged ... I don't think this serves justice.
>>
>
> Take a look at what he did to her. Read the facts of the case. The
> judge did nothing illegal.
>

I'm a criminal defense attorney, but I don't see how anyone can
seriously take a "leave the guy alone" attitude with a 43 year-old man
who used drugs and alcohol to rape and sodomize a 13 year-old kid.

A fine?

You've got to be kidding.

Skipper · External Since: Jan 19, 2009 Posts: 22

In article <h9oscn$44b$1@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Valois
<mvalois.RemoveThis@vbclegal.com> wrote:

> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <h9nt0h$8pp$1@reader1.panix.com>, Schlockhack
> > <Sarema.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> http://news.aol.com/article/zurich-film-festival-says-director-roman/689143?
> >> ic
> >>
> >> id=main|htmlws-main|dl2|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fzurich-
> >> fil
> >> m-festival-says-director-roman%2F689143
> >>
> >> My comment: the victim herself has stated she doesn't want to see him
> >> in jail ... the judge in the original case offered a plea bargain and
> >> then reneged ... I don't think this serves justice.
> >>
> >
> > Take a look at what he did to her. Read the facts of the case. The
> > judge did nothing illegal.
> >
>
> I'm a criminal defense attorney, but I don't see how anyone can
> seriously take a "leave the guy alone" attitude with a 43 year-old man
> who used drugs and alcohol to rape and sodomize a 13 year-old kid.
>
> A fine?
>
> You've got to be kidding.
>

Unfortunately for me, I know too much about that whole crowd and their
sexual nastiness. If you ever run into a guy named Jack some time, ask
him how many underage girls he's ever done and if he ever kept a bunch
of apartments for aspiring actresses whose duty was to wear Catholic
schoolgirl outfits and service him at his whim. Then ask him what he
and a guy named Sean and a guy named Warren did one night one right
after another with a 14 year-old.

Your Mom · External Since: Aug 08, 2009 Posts: 8

On Sep 27, 7:31 am, Schlockhack <Sar... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> http://news.aol.com/article/zurich-film-festival-says-director-roman/....tmlws-m|dl2|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fzurich-film-festival-says-director-roman%2F689143
>
> My comment: the victim herself has stated she doesn't want to see him
> in jail ... the judge in the original case offered a plea bargain and
> then reneged ... I don't think this serves justice.

I saw an interview with him from around this time where he tried to
excuse this rape because his 13-year-old victim told him she'd had a
previous sexual experience. That said, she sued him and won a
settlement, following which she's said that he doesn't belong in jail
and that she'd appear in court to defend him.

But the fact remains: he must be punished for the ending of "The Ninth
Gate."

nmstevens · External Since: Sep 03, 2009 Posts: 15

On Sep 27, 7:27 pm, Paul Valois <mval... RemoveThis @vbclegal.com> wrote:
> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <h9nt0h$8p...@reader1.panix.com>, Schlockhack
> > <Sar... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://news.aol.com/article/zurich-film-festival-says-director-roman/...
> >> id=main|htmlws-main|dl2|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fzurich-fil
> >> m-festival-says-director-roman%2F689143
>
> >> My comment: the victim herself has stated she doesn't want to see him
> >> in jail ... the judge in the original case offered a plea bargain and
> >> then reneged ... I don't think this serves justice.
>
> > Take a look at what he did to her. Read the facts of the case. The
> > judge did nothing illegal.
>
> I'm a criminal defense attorney, but I don't see how anyone can
> seriously take a "leave the guy alone" attitude with a 43 year-old man
> who used drugs and alcohol to rape and sodomize a 13 year-old kid.
>
> A fine?
>
> You've got to be kidding.- Hide quoted text -
>

The question that I have for you -- as a defense attorney is this.

If you were defending someone who was guilty of something -- whatever
it was -- assault, rape, murder -- whatever, and you arrived at a plea
deal with the prosecutor -- your client would plead guilty to "X" and
in exchange, they'd receive a sentence of "Y" -- that was the deal.
Both sides agree.

And you go into court and the judge says -- well, Mr. Valois, I'll
accept your side if the deal - your client's plea of guilty to X --
but I'm going to throw out the other side of the deal - the sentence
of "Y" -- because I think it's not enough. I'm going to sentence your
client to fifty times Y because I think it's more in keeping with the
crime.

Irrespective of what your client may have done, you might consider
yourself and him to have been ill-used.

Now, you might make a case that the original plea deal wasn't
reasonable.

On the other hand, I might very well make a case that any given client
of yours or of any other attorney got off with a hell of a lot less
time than they deserved. Who knows?

There are all sorts of reasons why prosecutors make deals or refuse to
make deals. They chose not to make a deal in the O.J. Simpson case and
took him to trial. Maybe, in retrospect, if they could have made a
deal that would have given him any amount of time behind bars, it
would have been a better decision.

Maybe that was why they made the deal with Polanski rather than going
to trial. Maybe they were afraid that, with a big celebrity director,
they'd have had trouble getting a conviction.

The point is -- they made the deal. And unless your position is -- I
never make plea bargains, I don't believe in them, I take every case
to trial (and I'm kind of betting that you don't do that) -- then you
have to believe that the system of plea bargaining is a legitimate
tool of our legal system.

Well, it's only a legitimate tool if it binds both parties -- and it
can't bind both parties if a judge can arbitrarily set *one side* of
the terms of a bargain aside to the advantage of one side -- and that
side, let's face it, inevitably being the prosecution.

And that's what this judge did. He didn't say -- I refuse to accept
the plea of guilty. He didn't say -- I'm not willing to accept the
bargain at all - take it to trial. He was perfectly willing to accept
one side of the bargain -- the guilty plea. He just wasn't willing to
accept the other side of the bargain.

How can that not undermine the entire idea of making plea bargains --
irrespective of what Roman Polanski did or what punishment you think
he deserved.

I mean, let's face it -- you don't go into court and ask the judge to
give your clients the punishment they deserve. You go in and try to
get them off. If they rape, if they assault, if they killed their
grandmothers (at any rate, if that's what they were accused of) -- if
you could plea bargain all of them down to time served, I suspect
you'd happily do it. In fact, if you didn't you wouldn't be much of a
defense attorney.

And that's why you enter into a plea bargain -- not to get your client
the punishment he deserves, but to get your client the best deal you
think you can get.

And that's why the prosecution agrees to the deal, to get the best
deal, from their perspective, that they think they can get.

But if they can go before a judge, with a wink and nod, and the judge
throws out the deal and slams your client with a much harsher sentence
-- what happened to your deal?

NMS

Paulo Joe Jingy · External Since: Sep 28, 2009 Posts: 9

Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
> nmstevens wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 7:27 pm, Paul Valois <mval....TakeThisOut@vbclegal.com> wrote:
>>> Skipper wrote:
>>>> In article <h9nt0h$8p...@reader1.panix.com>, Schlockhack
>>>> <Sar....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://news.aol.com/article/zurich-film-festival-says-director-roman/...
>>>>> id=main|htmlws-main|dl2|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fzurich-fil
>>>>> m-festival-says-director-roman%2F689143
>>>>> My comment: the victim herself has stated she doesn't want to see him
>>>>> in jail ... the judge in the original case offered a plea bargain and
>>>>> then reneged ... I don't think this serves justice.
>>>> Take a look at what he did to her. Read the facts of the case. The
>>>> judge did nothing illegal.
>>> I'm a criminal defense attorney, but I don't see how anyone can
>>> seriously take a "leave the guy alone" attitude with a 43 year-old man
>>> who used drugs and alcohol to rape and sodomize a 13 year-old kid.
>>>
>>> A fine?
>>>
>>> You've got to be kidding.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>> The question that I have for you -- as a defense attorney is this.
>>
>> If you were defending someone who was guilty of something -- whatever
>> it was -- assault, rape, murder -- whatever, and you arrived at a plea
>> deal with the prosecutor -- your client would plead guilty to "X" and
>> in exchange, they'd receive a sentence of "Y" -- that was the deal.
>> Both sides agree.
>>
>> And you go into court and the judge says -- well, Mr. Valois, I'll
>> accept your side if the deal - your client's plea of guilty to X --
>> but I'm going to throw out the other side of the deal - the sentence
>> of "Y" -- because I think it's not enough. I'm going to sentence your
>> client to fifty times Y because I think it's more in keeping with the
>> crime.
>>
>> Irrespective of what your client may have done, you might consider
>> yourself and him to have been ill-used.
>>
>> Now, you might make a case that the original plea deal wasn't
>> reasonable.
>>
>> On the other hand, I might very well make a case that any given client
>> of yours or of any other attorney got off with a hell of a lot less
>> time than they deserved. Who knows?
>>
>> There are all sorts of reasons why prosecutors make deals or refuse to
>> make deals. They chose not to make a deal in the O.J. Simpson case and
>> took him to trial. Maybe, in retrospect, if they could have made a
>> deal that would have given him any amount of time behind bars, it
>> would have been a better decision.
>>
>> Maybe that was why they made the deal with Polanski rather than going
>> to trial. Maybe they were afraid that, with a big celebrity director,
>> they'd have had trouble getting a conviction.
>>
>> The point is -- they made the deal. And unless your position is -- I
>> never make plea bargains, I don't believe in them, I take every case
>> to trial (and I'm kind of betting that you don't do that) -- then you
>> have to believe that the system of plea bargaining is a legitimate
>> tool of our legal system.
>>
>> Well, it's only a legitimate tool if it binds both parties -- and it
>> can't bind both parties if a judge can arbitrarily set *one side* of
>> the terms of a bargain aside to the advantage of one side -- and that
>> side, let's face it, inevitably being the prosecution.
>>
>> And that's what this judge did. He didn't say -- I refuse to accept
>> the plea of guilty. He didn't say -- I'm not willing to accept the
>> bargain at all - take it to trial. He was perfectly willing to accept
>> one side of the bargain -- the guilty plea. He just wasn't willing to
>> accept the other side of the bargain.
>>
>> How can that not undermine the entire idea of making plea bargains --
>> irrespective of what Roman Polanski did or what punishment you think
>> he deserved.
>>
>> I mean, let's face it -- you don't go into court and ask the judge to
>> give your clients the punishment they deserve. You go in and try to
>> get them off. If they rape, if they assault, if they killed their
>> grandmothers (at any rate, if that's what they were accused of) -- if
>> you could plea bargain all of them down to time served, I suspect
>> you'd happily do it. In fact, if you didn't you wouldn't be much of a
>> defense attorney.
>>
>> And that's why you enter into a plea bargain -- not to get your client
>> the punishment he deserves, but to get your client the best deal you
>> think you can get.
>>
>> And that's why the prosecution agrees to the deal, to get the best
>> deal, from their perspective, that they think they can get.
>>
>> But if they can go before a judge, with a wink and nod, and the judge
>> throws out the deal and slams your client with a much harsher sentence
>> -- what happened to your deal?
>
> I have no idea what happened with this repulsive child-rapist 31 years
> ago, or what deal he made. (Or whether the "I'm a famous director"
> defense should be allowed or not.)
>
> But if that is allowed, I could see it now -- "Yes your honor, I'm
> currently employed as a petty thief, but I aspire to be a famous
> director, so shouldn't you cut me some slack on my statutory-rape of a
> thirteen-year-old-girl conviction?"
>
> I am curious (I honestly don't know) -- did the judge sign off on the
> plea agreement? Often the prosecution does a plea agreement and the
> judge doesn't approve it.
>
> And I heard some rumors that the plea agreement was for time served (42
> days). If that's true, I guess privilege really does have it rankness.
>
> I've said it before, I'll say it again. I don't think there should be
> any such thing as a plea agreement. Why should two people, equally
> guilty of the same crime, get different treatment simply because one
> rats out the other, first?
>
> That's not justice -- not even close.

But -- yeah -- if you do make a ridiculous plea agreement and the deal
is signed, sealed and delivered, then you shouldn't go back on it.

Having said that -- the cops and the courts lie to people all the time.

I got a knock on the door one time -- the cop was looking for an
acquaintance of mine -- who was in violation of parole. He swore on a
stack of bibles that if I could convince my acquaintance to come in he
"absolutely" wouldn't be arrested -- they just wanted to talk to him.

Gee -- what do you think happened? (After all he wasn't a "famous
director" with a high-priced lawyer.)

--
Paulo Joe Jingy
"I just couldn't live in a world without me."

Paulo Joe Jingy · External Since: Sep 28, 2009 Posts: 9

nmstevens wrote:
> On Sep 27, 7:27 pm, Paul Valois <mval... DeleteThis @vbclegal.com> wrote:
>> Skipper wrote:
>>> In article <h9nt0h$8p...@reader1.panix.com>, Schlockhack
>>> <Sar... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>>>> http://news.aol.com/article/zurich-film-festival-says-director-roman/...
>>>> id=main|htmlws-main|dl2|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fzurich-fil
>>>> m-festival-says-director-roman%2F689143
>>>> My comment: the victim herself has stated she doesn't want to see him
>>>> in jail ... the judge in the original case offered a plea bargain and
>>>> then reneged ... I don't think this serves justice.
>>> Take a look at what he did to her. Read the facts of the case. The
>>> judge did nothing illegal.
>> I'm a criminal defense attorney, but I don't see how anyone can
>> seriously take a "leave the guy alone" attitude with a 43 year-old man
>> who used drugs and alcohol to rape and sodomize a 13 year-old kid.
>>
>> A fine?
>>
>> You've got to be kidding.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> The question that I have for you -- as a defense attorney is this.
>
> If you were defending someone who was guilty of something -- whatever
> it was -- assault, rape, murder -- whatever, and you arrived at a plea
> deal with the prosecutor -- your client would plead guilty to "X" and
> in exchange, they'd receive a sentence of "Y" -- that was the deal.
> Both sides agree.
>
> And you go into court and the judge says -- well, Mr. Valois, I'll
> accept your side if the deal - your client's plea of guilty to X --
> but I'm going to throw out the other side of the deal - the sentence
> of "Y" -- because I think it's not enough. I'm going to sentence your
> client to fifty times Y because I think it's more in keeping with the
> crime.
>
> Irrespective of what your client may have done, you might consider
> yourself and him to have been ill-used.
>
> Now, you might make a case that the original plea deal wasn't
> reasonable.
>
> On the other hand, I might very well make a case that any given client
> of yours or of any other attorney got off with a hell of a lot less
> time than they deserved. Who knows?
>
> There are all sorts of reasons why prosecutors make deals or refuse to
> make deals. They chose not to make a deal in the O.J. Simpson case and
> took him to trial. Maybe, in retrospect, if they could have made a
> deal that would have given him any amount of time behind bars, it
> would have been a better decision.
>
> Maybe that was why they made the deal with Polanski rather than going
> to trial. Maybe they were afraid that, with a big celebrity director,
> they'd have had trouble getting a conviction.
>
> The point is -- they made the deal. And unless your position is -- I
> never make plea bargains, I don't believe in them, I take every case
> to trial (and I'm kind of betting that you don't do that) -- then you
> have to believe that the system of plea bargaining is a legitimate
> tool of our legal system.
>
> Well, it's only a legitimate tool if it binds both parties -- and it
> can't bind both parties if a judge can arbitrarily set *one side* of
> the terms of a bargain aside to the advantage of one side -- and that
> side, let's face it, inevitably being the prosecution.
>
> And that's what this judge did. He didn't say -- I refuse to accept
> the plea of guilty. He didn't say -- I'm not willing to accept the
> bargain at all - take it to trial. He was perfectly willing to accept
> one side of the bargain -- the guilty plea. He just wasn't willing to
> accept the other side of the bargain.
>
> How can that not undermine the entire idea of making plea bargains --
> irrespective of what Roman Polanski did or what punishment you think
> he deserved.
>
> I mean, let's face it -- you don't go into court and ask the judge to
> give your clients the punishment they deserve. You go in and try to
> get them off. If they rape, if they assault, if they killed their
> grandmothers (at any rate, if that's what they were accused of) -- if
> you could plea bargain all of them down to time served, I suspect
> you'd happily do it. In fact, if you didn't you wouldn't be much of a
> defense attorney.
>
> And that's why you enter into a plea bargain -- not to get your client
> the punishment he deserves, but to get your client the best deal you
> think you can get.
>
> And that's why the prosecution agrees to the deal, to get the best
> deal, from their perspective, that they think they can get.
>
> But if they can go before a judge, with a wink and nod, and the judge
> throws out the deal and slams your client with a much harsher sentence
> -- what happened to your deal?

I have no idea what happened with this repulsive child-rapist 31 years
ago, or what deal he made. (Or whether the "I'm a famous director"
defense should be allowed or not.)

But if that is allowed, I could see it now -- "Yes your honor, I'm
currently employed as a petty thief, but I aspire to be a famous
director, so shouldn't you cut me some slack on my statutory-rape of a
thirteen-year-old-girl conviction?"

I am curious (I honestly don't know) -- did the judge sign off on the
plea agreement? Often the prosecution does a plea agreement and the
judge doesn't approve it.

And I heard some rumors that the plea agreement was for time served (42
days). If that's true, I guess privilege really does have it rankness.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I don't think there should be
any such thing as a plea agreement. Why should two people, equally
guilty of the same crime, get different treatment simply because one
rats out the other, first?

That's not justice -- not even close.

--
Paulo Joe Jingy
"I just couldn't live in a world without me."

Paul Valois · External Since: Jan 14, 2009 Posts: 40

nmstevens wrote:

> The question that I have for you -- as a defense attorney is this.
>
> If you were defending someone who was guilty of something -- whatever
> it was -- assault, rape, murder -- whatever, and you arrived at a plea
> deal with the prosecutor -- your client would plead guilty to "X" and
> in exchange, they'd receive a sentence of "Y" -- that was the deal.
> Both sides agree.

I do this all the time. Both sides are bound by a written agreement,
but the court never is.

> And you go into court and the judge says -- well, Mr. Valois, I'll
> accept your side if the deal - your client's plea of guilty to X --
> but I'm going to throw out the other side of the deal - the sentence
> of "Y" -- because I think it's not enough. I'm going to sentence your
> client to fifty times Y because I think it's more in keeping with the
> crime.

This isn't how it works. If the judge rejects the deal, the deal is
off. The case goes to trial in front of a different judge. In this
case, what happened was the judge slammed the pervert into jail for a
psychiatric eval, and told both sides he wasn't happy with it and would
leave him in jail pending sentencing.
>
> Irrespective of what your client may have done, you might consider
> yourself and him to have been ill-used.

I have judges reject plea agreements. It happens. My clients have to
go before another judge or deal with it on appeal.
>
> Now, you might make a case that the original plea deal wasn't
> reasonable.
>
> On the other hand, I might very well make a case that any given client
> of yours or of any other attorney got off with a hell of a lot less
> time than they deserved. Who knows?
>
> There are all sorts of reasons why prosecutors make deals or refuse to
> make deals. They chose not to make a deal in the O.J. Simpson case and
> took him to trial. Maybe, in retrospect, if they could have made a
> deal that would have given him any amount of time behind bars, it
> would have been a better decision.
>
> Maybe that was why they made the deal with Polanski rather than going
> to trial. Maybe they were afraid that, with a big celebrity director,
> they'd have had trouble getting a conviction.

My guess is that they wanted to spare the victim and her family from
testifying, gven the incredible publicity a trial would engender.

>
> The point is -- they made the deal. And unless your position is -- I
> never make plea bargains, I don't believe in them, I take every case
> to trial (and I'm kind of betting that you don't do that) -- then you
> have to believe that the system of plea bargaining is a legitimate
> tool of our legal system.

It is a legitimate tool that I employ regularly.
>
> Well, it's only a legitimate tool if it binds both parties -- and it
> can't bind both parties if a judge can arbitrarily set *one side* of
> the terms of a bargain aside to the advantage of one side -- and that
> side, let's face it, inevitably being the prosecution.

Judges are NEVER bound by a agreement between the parties. Both sides
must persuade the judge that the bargain is a fair and just resolution
of the case. It appears that this judge was not persuaded, for whatever
reason.
>
> And that's what this judge did. He didn't say -- I refuse to accept
> the plea of guilty. He didn't say -- I'm not willing to accept the
> bargain at all - take it to trial. He was perfectly willing to accept
> one side of the bargain -- the guilty plea. He just wasn't willing to
> accept the other side of the bargain.

If that actually happened (I don't practice in California, but I have a
hard time believing that a judge could do this there) then the way to
handle it is NOT to jump bail. The way to handle this is an appeal.
>
> How can that not undermine the entire idea of making plea bargains --
> irrespective of what Roman Polanski did or what punishment you think
> he deserved.

First of all, I'm not sure you have the facts straight about the judge's
role in the plea bargain. But even if this judge did screw up, the
judicial system has mechanisms in place to deal with it. One of these
is NOT fleeing justice.
>
> I mean, let's face it -- you don't go into court and ask the judge to
> give your clients the punishment they deserve. You go in and try to
> get them off. If they rape, if they assault, if they killed their
> grandmothers (at any rate, if that's what they were accused of) -- if
> you could plea bargain all of them down to time served, I suspect
> you'd happily do it. In fact, if you didn't you wouldn't be much of a
> defense attorney.

Certainly. And the prosecution tries to nail them to crosses.
>
> And that's why you enter into a plea bargain -- not to get your client
> the punishment he deserves, but to get your client the best deal you
> think you can get.

Absolutely.

>
> And that's why the prosecution agrees to the deal, to get the best
> deal, from their perspective, that they think they can get.

This is not always true. Prosecutors are elected and are removed from
their client. The victim is not the client, "society" is. Given the
politics and the abstracted nature of their representation, prosecutors
are not always fair.
>
> But if they can go before a judge, with a wink and nod, and the judge
> throws out the deal and slams your client with a much harsher sentence
> -- what happened to your deal?

Such behavior wouldn't work more than once.

Another judge has entertained and denied Polanski's motion to dismiss.
He needs to face the music.

Why are so many of you guys out to protect a child rapist? I mean, say
he's the best director/writer/tap dancer the world has ever known.

So what?

Why are you guys so quick to apologize for a man who allegedly drugged,
raped and sodomized a kid against her will and who plead guilty to
raping her?

Your Mom · External Since: Aug 08, 2009 Posts: 8

> Why are so many of you guys out to protect a child rapist? I mean, say
> he's the best director/writer/tap dancer the world has ever known.
>
> So what?
>
> Why are you guys so quick to apologize for a man who allegedly drugged,
> raped and sodomized a kid against her will and who plead guilty to
> raping her?

And why isn't anyone else talking about that shitty, shitty ending to
"The Ninth Gate!?" Colossal letdown, man. Colossal.

wrabkin · External Since: Mar 01, 2009 Posts: 15

On Sep 28, 12:16ï¿½pm, Paul Valois <mval... DeleteThis @vbclegal.com> wrote:
> nmstevens wrote:
> > The question that I have for you -- as a defense attorney is this.
>
> > If you were defending someone who was guilty of something -- whatever
> > it was -- assault, rape, murder -- whatever, and you arrived at a plea
> > deal with the prosecutor -- your client would plead guilty to "X" and
> > in exchange, they'd receive a sentence of "Y" -- that was the deal.
> > Both sides agree.
>
> I do this all the time. ï¿½Both sides are bound by a written agreement,
> but the court never is.
>
> > And you go into court and the judge says -- well, Mr. Valois, I'll
> > accept your side if the deal - your client's plea of guilty to X --
> > but I'm going to throw out the other side of the deal - the sentence
> > of "Y" -- because I think it's not enough. I'm going to sentence your
> > client to fifty times Y because I think it's more in keeping with the
> > crime.
>
> This isn't how it works. ï¿½If the judge rejects the deal, the deal is
> off. ï¿½The case goes to trial in front of a different judge. ï¿½In this
> case, what happened was the judge slammed the pervert into jail for a
> psychiatric eval, and told both sides he wasn't happy with it and would
> leave him in jail pending sentencing.
>
>
>
> > Irrespective of what your client may have done, you might consider
> > yourself and him to have been ill-used.
>
> I have judges reject plea agreements. ï¿½It happens. ï¿½My clients have to
> go before another judge or deal with it on appeal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Now, you might make a case that the original plea deal wasn't
> > reasonable.
>
> > On the other hand, I might very well make a case that any given client
> > of yours or of any other attorney got off with a hell of a lot less
> > time than they deserved. Who knows?
>
> > There are all sorts of reasons why prosecutors make deals or refuse to
> > make deals. They chose not to make a deal in the O.J. Simpson case and
> > took him to trial. Maybe, in retrospect, if they could have made a
> > deal that would have given him any amount of time behind bars, it
> > would have been a better decision.
>
> > Maybe that was why they made the deal with Polanski rather than going
> > to trial. Maybe they were afraid that, with a big celebrity director,
> > they'd have had trouble getting a conviction.
>
> My guess is that they wanted to spare the victim and her family from
> testifying, gven the incredible publicity a trial would engender.
>
>
>
> > The point is -- they made the deal. And unless your position is -- I
> > never make plea bargains, I don't believe in them, I take every case
> > to trial (and I'm kind of betting that you don't do that) -- then you
> > have to believe that the system of plea bargaining is a legitimate
> > tool of our legal system.
>
> It is a legitimate tool that I employ regularly.
>
>
>
> > Well, it's only a legitimate tool if it binds both parties -- and it
> > can't bind both parties if a judge can arbitrarily set *one side* of
> > the terms of a bargain aside to the advantage of one side -- and that
> > side, let's face it, inevitably being the prosecution.
>
> Judges are NEVER bound by a agreement between the parties. Both sides
> must persuade the judge that the bargain is a fair and just resolution
> of the case. ï¿½It appears that this judge was not persuaded, for whatever
> reason.
>
>
>
> > And that's what this judge did. He didn't say -- I refuse to accept
> > the plea of guilty. He didn't say -- I'm not willing to accept the
> > bargain at all - take it to trial. He was perfectly willing to accept
> > one side of the bargain -- the guilty plea. ï¿½He just wasn't willing to
> > accept the other side of the bargain.
>
> If that actually happened (I don't practice in California, but I have a
> hard time believing that a judge could do this there) then the way to
> handle it is NOT to jump bail. ï¿½The way to handle this is an appeal.
>
>
>
> > How can that not undermine the entire idea of making plea bargains --
> > irrespective of what Roman Polanski did or what punishment you think
> > he deserved.
>
> First of all, I'm not sure you have the facts straight about the judge's
> role in the plea bargain. ï¿½But even if this judge did screw up, the
> judicial system has mechanisms in place to deal with it. ï¿½One of these
> is NOT fleeing justice.
>
>
>
> > I mean, let's face it -- you don't go into court and ask the judge to
> > give your clients the punishment they deserve. You go in and try to
> > get them off. If they rape, if they assault, if they killed their
> > grandmothers (at any rate, if that's what they were accused of) -- if
> > you could plea bargain all of them down to time served, I suspect
> > you'd happily do it. In fact, if you didn't you wouldn't be much of a
> > defense attorney.
>
> Certainly. ï¿½And the prosecution tries to nail them to crosses.
>
>
>
> > And that's why you enter into a plea bargain -- not to get your client
> > the punishment he deserves, but to get your client the best deal you
> > think you can get.
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>
> > And that's why the prosecution agrees to the deal, to get the best
> > deal, from their perspective, that they think they can get.
>
> This is not always true. ï¿½Prosecutors are elected and are removed from
> their client. ï¿½The victim is not the client, "society" is. ï¿½Given the
> politics and the abstracted nature of their representation, prosecutors
> are not always fair.
>
>
>
> > But if they can go before a judge, with a wink and nod, and the judge
> > throws out the deal and slams your client with a much harsher sentence
> > -- what happened to your deal?
>
> Such behavior wouldn't work more than once.
>
> Another judge has entertained and denied Polanski's motion to dismiss.
> He needs to face the music.
>
> Why are so many of you guys out to protect a child rapist? ï¿½I mean, say
> he's the best director/writer/tap dancer the world has ever known.
>
> So what?
>
> Why are you guys so quick to apologize for a man who allegedly drugged,
> raped and sodomized a kid against her will and who plead guilty to
> raping her?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Because we hate America and freedom, Paul.

Alan Brooks · External Since: Dec 13, 2004 Posts: 843

"Your Mom" <alex.s.fink.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

> And why isn't anyone else talking about that shitty, shitty ending to
> "The Ninth Gate!?" Colossal letdown, man. Colossal.

Because you and the other 6 people who saw the film have already discussed
it?

Funny, but I had never even heard of it. Polanski directing and Johnny Depp
starring and I never heard of it? Weird. Guess it got lost in there with
"The Seventh Seal", "The Fifth Element", "8.5", "9", "Nine", "21 Grams", "16
Blocks", "12 Monkeys" and "Se7en".

Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood

-- Never costar
to a numeral.

MWSM FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html

MC · External Since: Jan 06, 2005 Posts: 4169

In article <h9rftk$pcs$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Alan Brooks <chips RemoveThis @panix.com> wrote:

> "Your Mom" <alex.s.fink RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And why isn't anyone else talking about that shitty, shitty ending to
> > "The Ninth Gate!?" Colossal letdown, man. Colossal.
>
> Because you and the other 6 people who saw the film have already discussed
> it?
>
> Funny, but I had never even heard of it. Polanski directing and Johnny Depp
> starring and I never heard of it? Weird.

It has bags of atmosphere + Depp - and nothing else.

--

"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones

nmstevens · External Since: Sep 03, 2009 Posts: 15

On Sep 28, 3:16 pm, Paul Valois <mval... DeleteThis @vbclegal.com> wrote:
> nmstevens wrote:
> > The question that I have for you -- as a defense attorney is this.
>
> > If you were defending someone who was guilty of something -- whatever
> > it was -- assault, rape, murder -- whatever, and you arrived at a plea
> > deal with the prosecutor -- your client would plead guilty to "X" and
> > in exchange, they'd receive a sentence of "Y" -- that was the deal.
> > Both sides agree.
>
> I do this all the time. Both sides are bound by a written agreement,
> but the court never is.
>
> > And you go into court and the judge says -- well, Mr. Valois, I'll
> > accept your side if the deal - your client's plea of guilty to X --
> > but I'm going to throw out the other side of the deal - the sentence
> > of "Y" -- because I think it's not enough. I'm going to sentence your
> > client to fifty times Y because I think it's more in keeping with the
> > crime.
>
> This isn't how it works. If the judge rejects the deal, the deal is
> off. The case goes to trial in front of a different judge. In this
> case, what happened was the judge slammed the pervert into jail for a
> psychiatric eval, and told both sides he wasn't happy with it and would
> leave him in jail pending sentencing.
>
>
>
> > Irrespective of what your client may have done, you might consider
> > yourself and him to have been ill-used.
>
> I have judges reject plea agreements. It happens. My clients have to
> go before another judge or deal with it on appeal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Now, you might make a case that the original plea deal wasn't
> > reasonable.
>
> > On the other hand, I might very well make a case that any given client
> > of yours or of any other attorney got off with a hell of a lot less
> > time than they deserved. Who knows?
>
> > There are all sorts of reasons why prosecutors make deals or refuse to
> > make deals. They chose not to make a deal in the O.J. Simpson case and
> > took him to trial. Maybe, in retrospect, if they could have made a
> > deal that would have given him any amount of time behind bars, it
> > would have been a better decision.
>
> > Maybe that was why they made the deal with Polanski rather than going
> > to trial. Maybe they were afraid that, with a big celebrity director,
> > they'd have had trouble getting a conviction.
>
> My guess is that they wanted to spare the victim and her family from
> testifying, gven the incredible publicity a trial would engender.
>
>
>
> > The point is -- they made the deal. And unless your position is -- I
> > never make plea bargains, I don't believe in them, I take every case
> > to trial (and I'm kind of betting that you don't do that) -- then you
> > have to believe that the system of plea bargaining is a legitimate
> > tool of our legal system.
>
> It is a legitimate tool that I employ regularly.
>
>
>
> > Well, it's only a legitimate tool if it binds both parties -- and it
> > can't bind both parties if a judge can arbitrarily set *one side* of
> > the terms of a bargain aside to the advantage of one side -- and that
> > side, let's face it, inevitably being the prosecution.
>
> Judges are NEVER bound by a agreement between the parties. Both sides
> must persuade the judge that the bargain is a fair and just resolution
> of the case. It appears that this judge was not persuaded, for whatever
> reason.
>
>
>
> > And that's what this judge did. He didn't say -- I refuse to accept
> > the plea of guilty. He didn't say -- I'm not willing to accept the
> > bargain at all - take it to trial. He was perfectly willing to accept
> > one side of the bargain -- the guilty plea. He just wasn't willing to
> > accept the other side of the bargain.
>
> If that actually happened (I don't practice in California, but I have a
> hard time believing that a judge could do this there) then the way to
> handle it is NOT to jump bail. The way to handle this is an appeal.
>
>
>
> > How can that not undermine the entire idea of making plea bargains --
> > irrespective of what Roman Polanski did or what punishment you think
> > he deserved.
>
> First of all, I'm not sure you have the facts straight about the judge's
> role in the plea bargain. But even if this judge did screw up, the
> judicial system has mechanisms in place to deal with it. One of these
> is NOT fleeing justice.
>
>
>
> > I mean, let's face it -- you don't go into court and ask the judge to
> > give your clients the punishment they deserve. You go in and try to
> > get them off. If they rape, if they assault, if they killed their
> > grandmothers (at any rate, if that's what they were accused of) -- if
> > you could plea bargain all of them down to time served, I suspect
> > you'd happily do it. In fact, if you didn't you wouldn't be much of a
> > defense attorney.
>
> Certainly. And the prosecution tries to nail them to crosses.
>
>
>
> > And that's why you enter into a plea bargain -- not to get your client
> > the punishment he deserves, but to get your client the best deal you
> > think you can get.
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>
> > And that's why the prosecution agrees to the deal, to get the best
> > deal, from their perspective, that they think they can get.
>
> This is not always true. Prosecutors are elected and are removed from
> their client. The victim is not the client, "society" is. Given the
> politics and the abstracted nature of their representation, prosecutors
> are not always fair.
>
>
>
> > But if they can go before a judge, with a wink and nod, and the judge
> > throws out the deal and slams your client with a much harsher sentence
> > -- what happened to your deal?
>
> Such behavior wouldn't work more than once.
>
> Another judge has entertained and denied Polanski's motion to dismiss.
> He needs to face the music.
>
> Why are so many of you guys out to protect a child rapist? I mean, say
> he's the best director/writer/tap dancer the world has ever known.
>
> So what?
>
> Why are you guys so quick to apologize for a man who allegedly drugged,
> raped and sodomized a kid against her will and who plead guilty to
> raping her?- Hide quoted text -

Why do you think that I'm out to get Polanski off the hook?

I no more want Polanski "off the hook" than I want O.J. "off the hook"
-- and I'm no more making excuses for the former than I am for the
latter.

I think he was wrong to have left. And having run, I think that he
should have come back a long time ago and accepted responsibility for
what he did.

But the judge in question -- the one that set aside the deal, was
found guilty of judicial misconduct. So his actions in this case were
also found to have been wrong.

And "judicial" wrongs are a very different order of wrong than
criminal wrongs.

A crime can be despicable. What Roman Polanski did was despicable.

What Miranda did (of Miranda Rights fame) was equally despicable. He
was a rapist.

But I am, as a rule, always more concerned when the state does wrong
than when a citizen does wrong.

NMS

wrabkin · External Since: Mar 01, 2009 Posts: 15

On Sep 28, 4:12ï¿½pm, Alan Brooks <ch....RemoveThis@panix.com> wrote:
> "Your Mom" <alex.s.f....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And why isn't anyone else talking about that shitty, shitty ending to
> > "The Ninth Gate!?" Colossal letdown, man. Colossal.
>
> Because you and the other 6 people who saw the film have already discussed
> it?
>
> Funny, but I had never even heard of it. ï¿½Polanski directing and Johnny Depp
> starring and I never heard of it? ï¿½Weird. ï¿½Guess it got lost in there with
> "The Seventh Seal", "The Fifth Element", "8.5", "9", "Nine", "21 Grams", "16
> Blocks", "12 Monkeys" and "Se7en".
>
> ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ Alan Brooks
> ---------------------------
> A Schmuck with an Underwood
>
> -- Never costar
> ï¿½ ï¿½to a numeral.
>
> MWSM FAQ:http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
> Filtering Trolls:http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html

Funny you should mention that. The reason I stopped posting here for
weeks was because I researched and wrote a long post after someone
asked how many movies there were with number titles between 1 and 100.
I came up with about 85. (Yes, I was desperate not to work, thank you
very much.) And it was one of the posts that disappeared into Google
purgatory...

Wordsmith · External Since: May 01, 2007 Posts: 113

On Sep 27, 5:27 pm, Paul Valois <mval....RemoveThis@vbclegal.com> wrote:
> Skipper wrote:
> > In article <h9nt0h$8p...@reader1.panix.com>, Schlockhack
> > <Sar....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://news.aol.com/article/zurich-film-festival-says-director-roman/...
> >> id=main|htmlws-main|dl2|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fzurich-fil
> >> m-festival-says-director-roman%2F689143
>
> >> My comment: the victim herself has stated she doesn't want to see him
> >> in jail ... the judge in the original case offered a plea bargain and
> >> then reneged ... I don't think this serves justice.
>
> > Take a look at what he did to her. Read the facts of the case. The
> > judge did nothing illegal.
>
> I'm a criminal defense attorney, but I don't see how anyone can
> seriously take a "leave the guy alone" attitude with a 43 year-old man
> who used drugs and alcohol to rape and sodomize a 13 year-old kid.
>
> A fine?
>
> You've got to be kidding.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A big enough fine will hurt him. That's not letting him off.

W

Alan Brooks · External Since: Dec 13, 2004 Posts: 843

"wrabkin" <wrabkin.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:

> Funny you should mention that. The reason I stopped posting here for
> weeks was because I researched and wrote a long post after someone
> asked how many movies there were with number titles between 1 and 100.
> I came up with about 85. (Yes, I was desperate not to work, thank you
> very much.) And it was one of the posts that disappeared into Google
> purgatory...

And you didn't keep the list? Or you've lost your motivation to avoid
work...

Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood

-- American Pi
(in Kansas that's "3")

MWSM FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html

Paul Valois · External Since: Jan 14, 2009 Posts: 40

wrabkin wrote:
>> Why are you guys so quick to apologize for a man who allegedly drugged,
>> raped and sodomized a kid against her will and who plead guilty to
>> raping her?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Because we hate America and freedom, Paul.

This much is self-evident.

But, let's say hypothetically that we're in that Hollywood Dream Land of
Saudi Arabia, where any Saudi citizen can rape any child he wishes, as
long as the child has mere immigrant servants for parents.

The question remains, why do you guts stick up for a guy like this who
is not only alleged to have drugged, raped and sodomized a kid, but who
has actually plead guilty to child rape?

Huh?

Seriously?