Roman Polanski could be in his Gstaad chalet for a year:
Film director Roman Polanski could spend up to a year in courts appealing if Switzerland decided to extradite him to the United States, the Swiss justice minister was quoted as saying on Sunday.
. . . .
“After an extradition decision by the Swiss justice ministry, Mr. Polanski has the possibility of appealing to the Federal Criminal Court and then the Federal Supreme Court,” Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf told the newspaper Le Matin Dimanche.
“It’s hard to say how long (an appeal) would take, but it could be from several months to a year.”
The evident goal here is for him to collect so much time “served” at his chalet that, when that time is credited against any possible prison sentence he might receive, Polanski wouldn’t have to spend any time at all in a California prison. I won’t express any opinion as to whether he would be entitled to have his time at the chalet credited against any prison sentence. But if he were entitled to such credit, and if it takes a year for all the appeals to be resolved, that could eat up most or all of the actual time he would have to serve — given he reportedly faces a maximum sentence of two years, minus any credits he would already be entitled to from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
P.S. The story repeats the canard that there was an “agreement” that he serve only 42 more days:
He has said he feared the judge was going to renege on an agreement to sentence him to the 42 days he had already served behind bars.
An “agreement” implies a quid pro quo. And as I have explained countless times, there was no “agreement” because Polanski pled to a charge that he knew carried at least 20 years, with no agreement as to what the sentence would be.
Good luck trying to get a correction . . .