Polanski Granted Bail
[Guest post by DRJ]
The Swiss Criminal Court has decided to release Roman Polanski on $4.5M bail and he may be transferred to house arrest within days:
“Ministry Spokesman Folco Galli said the final decision on transferring Polanski to his chalet in the Swiss resort of Gstaad would be made “quickly.”
“The 76-year-old appellant is married and the father of two minors,” the court said as it considered Polanski’s offer of a cash bail secured by his apartment in Paris. “It can be assumed that as a responsible father he will, especially in view of his advanced age, attach greater importance to the financial security of his family than a younger person.”
The court said Polanski would be subjected to “constant electronic surveillance” at his chalet and an alarm would be activated if he leaves the premises or takes off the bracelet, adding that the filmmaker was still viewed as a high flight risk.”
It’s ironic that the Court focused on Polanski’s concern for children to justify his release. Meanwhile, legal experts in Switzerland and the U.S. were surprised by the decision since Polanski is a proven flight risk and is not a Swiss resident:
“Swiss legal experts had said earlier that Polanski’s chances of bail were slim, and even U.S. authorities expressed confidence that a Swiss court wouldn’t grant his release.
The court last month rejected Polanski’s first bail offer of his Gstaad chalet as collateral, which the director claimed made up more than half of his personal wealth and would definitely guard against his flight because he has two children he must support through school.
The court demanded cash instead, and this time looked favorably on Polanski’s offer of a bank guarantee and the threat of sacrificing his family’s home if he fled justice.
“Cash is king,” said Peter Cosandey, a former Zurich prosecutor. Still, he said he could “hardly remember a case where bail is granted to someone who isn’t even a full-time Swiss resident.”
The AP notes Polanski’s attorneys plan to proceed with a scheduled California court proceeding next month asking that the charges be dismissed whether or not Polanski is present.
Finally, as Patterico has noted before, the AP repeated its claim that the judge agreed to sentence Polanski to no more than 90 days:
“Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse. In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. The evaluator release Polanski after 42 days, but the judge said he was going to send him back to serve out the 90 days.”
If they say it enough it may come true.
H/T PCD.
— DRJ
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: To be clear, the error here is the claim that the judge agreed to do this “in exchange” for Polanski’s plea — suggesting that this was a term of the plea bargain. As I have pointed out on many an occasion, it was not.
…and Unicorns shall graze on the South-lawn of the White House.
AD - RtR/OS! (b005ed) — 11/25/2009 @ 11:13 amHas there ever been an instance of a court setting bail for someone who hasn’t been charged with committing any crime within that jurisdiction? I would have thought there was some kind of international law against that sort of thing.
j curtis (5126e4) — 11/25/2009 @ 11:16 amPerhaps you could have the Patterico Pool, with contestants staking a claim as to when Mr Polanski will flee from house arrest and make it back to France.
Put me down for December 13th, 6:26 AM local time.
The cynical Dana (3e4784) — 11/25/2009 @ 11:16 amBut Roman fled jurisdiction for decades.
Are these people serious? He fled for this specific case! He’s granted bail, anyway? That doesn’t make any sense.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/25/2009 @ 11:25 ami predict he will rely on the Taco Bell defense….
and who the hell would want an apartment in Paris anyway?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 11/25/2009 @ 11:43 amThe Swiss have appealed to their high court, but I wonder what the cost would be to have “Tourists” watch that chalet 24/7? Maybe break Polanski’s legs should he try to run?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 11/25/2009 @ 12:18 pmWould it be legal to sentence Polanski to be Charlie Manson’s roommate?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 11/25/2009 @ 12:20 pmredc1c4 asked:
As opposed to an apartment in Calipatria, California? Maybe a lot of people!
The realtor Dana (3e4784) — 11/25/2009 @ 12:27 pmConsider, for a second, that those Navy SEALs, win or lose, are going to be punished worse than this child raping country fleeing monster.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/25/2009 @ 12:30 pmI wish I had the vacation time and money to watch Mr. Polanski. 1 foot out of his door, I’d do my best Dog Chapman imitation and drag him into Mr. Frey’s office for garbage disposal.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 11/25/2009 @ 12:48 pmIts official. the swiss are retarded. if i was the police there, i would have two officers on each door to that house 24/7. you don’t want your country to be a laughingstock when the pedo flees.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/25/2009 @ 2:35 pmIn Switzerland, cash is indeed king.
The Swiss are a money-loving, law-abiding, money-loving, industrious, money-loving, civilized, money-loving, clean, money-loving, intelligent, money-loving, well-educated, money-loving people.
Given a choice between Roman Polanski and $4.5 million, they’ll take the $4.5 million.
nk (df76d4) — 11/25/2009 @ 2:47 pmThat would explain why the Swiss required that any bail be paid in cash or via a bank guarantee, but in fairness Polanski is a high flight risk so it would be foolish to agree to anything less.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/25/2009 @ 4:03 pmThere’s a story
During WWII a German tank trespasses by about three inches onto Swiss territory at a Swiss border post. The border guard takes out his pistol, points it at the tank, and says, “Move back”. That’s one border guard against an armored squadron. The squadron commander radios Berlin for instructions. He is ordered “Move back”.
The Nazis knew that what you need to have your way in Switzerland is to pay your way. They hid a lot of their loot there during the war and they had it when they were fleeing after the war.
nk (df76d4) — 11/25/2009 @ 4:13 pmNeutrality in WWII is acceptance of mass murder. It is simply evil. No doubt, this was a profitable position to take.
Bush was right when it comes to pure evil. You’re either with us or against us. Sounds dumb, but just because it’s obvious and simple doesn’t mean it’s untrue.
This is a rapist who fled in this very case. Bringing him to justice shouldn’t be negotiable.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/25/2009 @ 4:29 pm