Polanski Accuser’s Evidence
[Guest post by DRJ]
John Nolte at BigGovernment thinks the latest Polanski rape accuser has corroborating evidence — a witness who may verify she made a contemporaneous outcry:
“When British actress Charlotte Lewis first came forward to accuse fugitive director Roman Polanski of abusing her in 1983 at a press conference last week, one of the more intriguing statements was made by her attorney Gloria Allred:
“[Ms. Lewis] did present fresh complaint evidence to law enforcement, and it is in their possession.”
The Polanski-loving media didn’t mention this. They prefer a ”He Said, She Said” argument. Upon hearing this, however, my first thought was that a witness would be interesting, though obviously unlikely.
This is me speculating, but in a just-released statement Ms. Lewis might have revealed what that fresh complaint evidence is. And while it’s not a witness to the crime, it is the next best thing:
I stand by my statements to the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, and would welcome the chance to confront Roman Polanski face to face anytime, anywhere in the world because I am telling the truth and he knows it,” Ms Lewis said.
“Further, shortly after the incident with Mr Polanski when I was 16 I told a friend the truth about how Mr Polanski had taken advantage of me.
“My attorney, Gloria Allred, delivered a notarised statement to law enforcement from that friend and it supports my statement.”
According to Ms. Lewis, under penalty of perjury, someone has made a sworn statement that Ms. Lewis told them Polanski took advantage of her — and told them shortly after the incident.”
Does California consider the testimony of a rape outcry witness as an exception to the hearsay code? My guess is that it does.
— DRJ
I don’t know if it’s admissible for truth – it might be present sense impression, but I don’t know enough to be sure.
But it’s clearly admissable to rebut any claims of late fabrication by Polanski’s lawyers.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/20/2010 @ 11:42 amPolanski is a pervert and a creep. Who else would take Woody Allen as a character witness?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 5/20/2010 @ 11:45 amPrediction:
Roman Polanski’s only hope to not die in a CA correctional institute is to avoid extradition for his crimes.
The Swiss Courts may be able to stone-wall the request backed only by his guilty-plea (what with all of the attendant controversy involved),
AD - RtR/OS! (c4618b) — 5/20/2010 @ 12:47 pmbut an additional indictment might disturb their comfort level – particularly with a visible, and vocal accuser
(and you know that Glo will keep this in front of the cameras – it is what she does).
aphrael,
In addition to a possible excited utterance exception, Texas law includes an exception to the hearsay rule for some outcry statements. Criminal Procedure Code Article 38.072 and Family Code Section 54.031, but both apply when the victim is 12 or younger. I’m not sure if California has a similar law and, if so, what the age limit is. If there is one, I doubt it extends to 16.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/20/2010 @ 12:53 pmThere’s the child abuse clause, but it expires at 12. There are declarant-unavailable exceptions which might apply, but she’s available, so they don’t. 🙂
I’m by no means an expert, but my sense is that it wouldn’t be admissable for truth. That said, it’s existence deprives Polanski of the ability to argue recent fabrication, so it’s quite powerful even if it isn’t admissable for truth.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/20/2010 @ 1:03 pmIf we can retroactively extend the statute of limitations for child molesting priests, why can’t we for Frenchified Hollywood directors?
nk (db4a41) — 5/20/2010 @ 1:03 pmGiven how far the Hollywood glitterati has been willing to go to excuse a child molester I’m thinking they’ll go right on excusing. At this point Mr Polanski could take a dump on the walk of stars and his supporters would praise his “Free Expression”.
glenn (0af9f1) — 5/20/2010 @ 2:28 pmComment by glenn — 5/20/2010 @ 2:28 pm
…and find hidden, but sage, meanings in the arrangement upon said walk.
AD - RtR/OS! (c4618b) — 5/20/2010 @ 2:38 pmBut what does she intend by the statement? And was that her intent at the time (well, at both times: the act and the outcry?)
He’s a scum. He may be smart enough to stay in Europe.
htom (412a17) — 5/20/2010 @ 3:52 pmNext time, leave the name of the attorney blank and see if we can guess it.
My first three choices are Gloria Allred, Gloria Allred, and Gloria Allred.
TomHynes (2e563b) — 5/20/2010 @ 4:09 pmI think she intended to say she was butt hurt… Polanski’s next defense will be that his equipment is too small to be felt… but
Steve G (7d4c78) — 5/20/2010 @ 6:38 pmlet’s wait for the text though
Does anyone think that his supporters in Hollywood and the movies that came to his defense when he was first arrested in Switzerland are having second thoughts?
I mean besides Woody Allen who is still waiting for a good explanation of what was wrong with what Polanski did.
MU789 (d30691) — 5/20/2010 @ 8:22 pmCalifornia Evidence Code section 1236 (I hope) is the Prior Consistent Statement exception to the hearsay rule. Since hearsay is, by its nature, offered for the proof of the matter asserted, the prior statements are admissible for the truth of the matter. (There’s a form jury instruction on point.)
Prior consistent statement requires an implication by the other side of recent fabrication. Without that, it’s inadmissible.
I’ve never seen a case where the defense was so careful as to avoid triggering the prior consistent statement rule.
Spontaneous statements, still under the influence of the event, are also admissible. (If she told her friend minutes after it happened, that would be admissible.)
(Note that statements to the cops would not have Crawford problems if the witness is available.)
–JRM
JRM (65bbfb) — 5/20/2010 @ 8:40 pm