By Nick Cumming-Bruce for the New York Times.

The director Roman Polanski was released from custody on $4.5 million bail and transferred to house arrest in the upscale ski resort of Gstaad Friday pending a judicial ruling on an American request for his extradition…

In a statement, the Swiss governmenti said: “Roman Polanski was today released from custody pending extradition and transferred to Gstaad, where he is under house arrest at his chalet. Polanski has undertaken not to leave his house and property at any time.” Swiss authorities initially took Mr. Polanski, 76, from a jail in Winterthur in northeastern Switzerland to an undisclosed location on Thursday to avoid media representatives who staked out the jail as well as the chalet in Gsaad…

Mr. Polanski will be restricted to the house and grounds of his chalet but is free to receive visitors and “whether he wants to show himself or hide in the chalet is up to him,” Mr. Galli said.

Mr. Polanski’s lawyers plan to oppose the extradition request. Mr. Galli said the decision would take “some weeks.” If the ministry approves his extradition, Mr. Polanski has 30 days in which to appeal to Switzerland’ s Supreme Court.

Here is the full text of the article, in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/world/europe/05polanski.html?_r=1

December 5, 2009
Polanski Begins House Arrest
By NICK CUMMING-BRUCE

GENEVA — The director Roman Polanski was released from custody on $4.5 million bail and transferred to house arrest in the upscale ski resort of Gstaad Friday pending a judicial ruling on an American request for his extradition.

Mr. Polanski is wanted in the United States on charges dating to 1978 that he fled the country to avoid sentencing for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

A crowd of some 200 journalists had gathered behind a police cordon in the resort to await Mr. Polanski’s arrival at his luxury chalet there. Reporters said he arrived and drove into an underground garage without commenting.

In a statement, the Swiss governmenti said: “Roman Polanski was today released from custody pending extradition and transferred to Gstaad, where he is under house arrest at his chalet. Polanski has undertaken not to leave his house and property at any time.” Swiss authorities initially took Mr. Polanski, 76, from a jail in Winterthur in northeastern Switzerland to an undisclosed location on Thursday to avoid media representatives who staked out the jail as well as the chalet in Gsaad.

“It wasn’t possible to make the transfer for security reasons,” Folco Galli, a Justice Ministry spokesman, said in a telephone interview.

Swiss authorities initially opposed bail for Mr. Polanksi after his Sept. 26 arrest because of fears that he might flee. The court eventually accepted his appeal for release on condition that he post bail of $4.5 million, relinquish all travel and identity documents to the police and wear an electronic monitoring device.

Mr. Polanski will be restricted to the house and grounds of his chalet but is free to receive visitors and “whether he wants to show himself or hide in the chalet is up to him,” Mr. Galli said

Mr. Polanski’s lawyers plan to oppose the extradition request. Mr. Galli said the decision would take “some weeks.” If the ministry approves his extradition, Mr. Polanski has 30 days in which to appeal to Switzerland’ s Supreme Court.

Alan Cowell contributed reporting from Paris.

By Michael Cieply for the New York Times.

As a rule, oral arguments before a state court of appeals would not make for scintillating television. But a hearing in the Roman Polanski case, set for Dec. 10 in the California Court of Appeal for the Second District in Los Angeles might be an exception. The court this week notified lawyers in the case that it has received a request to permit television coverage of the hearing, and expects to receive others, based on informal queries.

Here is the full text of the entire article, in case the link goes bad:

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/request-is-made-to-bring-tv-cameras-into-polanski-hearing/?pagemode=print

November 18, 2009, 2:55 pm
Request Is Made to Bring TV Cameras Into Polanski Hearing
By MICHAEL CIEPLY

As a rule, oral arguments before a state court of appeals would not make for scintillating television. But a hearing in the Roman Polanski case, set for Dec. 10 in the California Court of Appeal for the Second District in Los Angeles might be an exception. The court this week notified lawyers in the case that it has received a request to permit television coverage of the hearing, and expects to receive others, based on informal queries.

The matter has yet to be decided, and the lawyers will be allowed voice their opinions on the pros and cons. If the news cameras are allowed, they will give those lawyers an unusual opportunity to speak past the appeals court — which is hearing issues related to claims that the 32-year-old sex case against Mr. Polanski was tainted by misconduct — to officials in Zurich, where Mr. Polanski is being held, pending possible extradition to the United States.

by Michael Cieply

“…a California appeals court in Los Angeles has scheduled oral arguments in its review of Roman Polanski’s three-decade-old sex case for Dec. 10.”

Here is the full text of the article, in case the link goes bad:

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/date-set-for-oral-arguments-in-polanski-case/

November 2, 2009, 7:39 pm
Date Set for Oral Arguments in Polanski Case
By MICHAEL CIEPLY

Let the arguments begin: a California appeals court in Los Angeles has scheduled oral arguments in its review of Roman Polanski’s three-decade-old sex case for Dec. 10.

Mr. Polanski and his lawyers have been asking the appeals court to clear the way for consideration of claims that his case was tainted by judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, even though he has been a fugitive since 1978. Prosecutors have argued that Mr. Polanski, because of his fugitive status, has no standing to challenge his conviction.

Meanwhile, Mr. Polanski remains under arrest in Switzerland, awaiting possible extradition to face sentencing in the U. S. The appeals court could clear the way for a review of misconduct in the Polanski case, or could stand aside, while authorities here await his return.

by Michael Cieply for the New York Times.

“…Nicholas Marsh, it turns out, was assigned to the office back in June, after serving as a prosecutor in the Justice Department’s failed pursuit of Ted Stevens, then a United States senator from Alaska, on ethics charges. That case fell apart when a judge found that a team of prosecutors, which included Mr. Marsh, had improperly concealed documents and committed other misconduct.

Reached briefly by phone at the office of international affairs on Monday, Mr. Marsh referred questions to the Justice Department’s media representatives. Laura Sweeney, a department spokeswoman, declined to comment.”

Here’s the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/former-ted-stevens-prosecutor-pursued-polanski/

September 29, 2009, 6:53 am
Former Prosecutor of Ted Stevens Pursued Polanski
By MICHAEL CIEPLY

Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press Ted Stevens

In the department of interesting connections: A letter sent to Swiss authorities last Wednesday asking for the extradition to the United States of Roman Polanski to face sentencing for having sex with a minor three decades ago, came from the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs. More specifically, it was sent by Nicholas Marsh.

And Nicholas Marsh, it turns out, was assigned to the office back in June, after serving as a prosecutor in the Justice Department’s failed pursuit of Ted Stevens, then a United States senator from Alaska, on ethics charges. That case fell apart when a judge found that a team of prosecutors, which included Mr. Marsh, had improperly concealed documents and committed other misconduct.

Reached briefly by phone at the office of international affairs on Monday, Mr. Marsh referred questions to the Justice Department’s media representatives. Laura Sweeney, a department spokeswoman, declined to comment.

Earlier, however, Ms. Sweeney relayed some information about cases that had resulted in extraditions from Switzerland. The most recent was two Swiss extraditions to the United States that occurred on Aug. 20, she said, when Stephen Sadler, a former United Nations employee, was sent to Georgia, where he is charged with cocaine trafficking, and Vlad Fayngold, a credit card fraud suspect who was sent to California, where he, too, faces charges in federal court.

This reporter and a couple of others had come to check out a hastily scheduled hearing at which Mr. Polanski’s new lawyer, Chad Hummel, asked Judge Peter Espinoza to issue some subpoenas and round up some potential witnesses in advance of a bigger hearing scheduled for Feb. 17. Mr. Polanski wants the court to set aside the case against him, arguing, among other things, that the original judge and a deputy district attorney were improperly talking on the side about sentencing and such…

Ms. Zenovich did the reporters one better on Friday: she showed up with a camera and sound crew. Another documentary? “Cleaning up,” she said, without more explanation.

This attempt to dump the old case and end Mr. Polanski’s fugitive status has taken on some unexpected heat. Both the district attorney’s office and the Superior Court itself had public relations people on hand Friday. They appeared to outnumber the reporters, unless you count Ms. Zenovich, which evened things up.

Here’s the full text of the article, in case the link goes bad:

http://carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/marina-zenovich/

February 13, 2009, 7:08 pm
L.A. Dispatch: A Sequel for ‘Wanted and Desired?’
By Michael Cieply

Imagine our surprise. Not 12 steps from the elevator door at the downtown criminal courts building here stood Marina Zenovich. She would be the filmmaker whose documentary, “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” did not make the short list of Oscar-contenders this year, despite excellent reviews and churning up a still-raging storm over alleged wrong-doing by the justice system from which Mr. Polanski fled to France. He did so after pleading guilty to having wrongful sex with a minor three decades ago.

This reporter and a couple of others had come to check out a hastily scheduled hearing at which Mr. Polanski’s new lawyer, Chad Hummel, asked Judge Peter Espinoza to issue some subpoenas and round up some potential witnesses in advance of a bigger hearing scheduled for Feb. 17. Mr. Polanski wants the court to set aside the case against him, arguing, among other things, that the original judge and a deputy district attorney were improperly talking on the side about sentencing and such.

Ms. Zenovich did the reporters one better on Friday: she showed up with a camera and sound crew. Another documentary? “Cleaning up,” she said, without more explanation.

This attempt to dump the old case and end Mr. Polanski’s fugitive status has taken on some unexpected heat. Both the district attorney’s office and the Superior Court itself had public relations people on hand Friday. They appeared to outnumber the reporters, unless you count Ms. Zenovich, which evened things up.

What makes this sticky is not just the celebrity status of the aging movie-maker in the middle. Mr. Polanski and his lawyers have claimed a corruption of justice, and that sort of thing does not sit well with the authorities whose institutions are being accused. Even before Friday’s hearing started, Mr. Hummel had a heated, 10-minute exchange with a deputy district attorney, Patrick Dixon.

It probably didn’t help that a higher-up in Mr. Dixon’s office, Richard Doyle, the director of the Major Crimes Division, is among those Mr. Hummel wants subpoenaed, along with David Wells, the now retired deputy who talked in Ms. Zenovich’s documentary about coaching the original judge, Laurence Rittenband, and Roger Gunson, the original prosecutor in the case.

Mr. Dixon told the judge Mr. Polanski, as a fugitive, had no right to ask the court for anything. Period. Judge Espinoza said he would take it all under consideration, and told all to show up next Tuesday at 2 p.m. He also told Mr. Dixon to make sure Mr. Doyle, the major crimes guy, would be available, just in case he, the judge, decided some testimony was in order.

The recent attempt to have the charges against Mr. Polanski dismissed rests on claims that a superior court judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, who died in 1993, was improperly coached by a now-retired deputy district attorney. The retired deputy, David Wells, openly described his encounters the judge in a documentary film, “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” which was released last year…

Mr. Polanski, in any case, chose to remain in France, where he now lives with his wife, the actress Emmanuelle Seigner, and their children. But he agreed to address the case yet again when the documentary, directed by Marina Zenovich, displayed an interview in which Mr. Wells, who frequently handled cases with Judge Rittenband, talked of having advised the judge about Mr. Polanski’s sentencing.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/polanskis-lawyers-seek-change-of-venue-from-hollywood/?scp=2&sq=roman%20polanski&st=cse

NY Times, Monday, January 5, 2009

LOS ANGELES —Is this “Chinatown” after all?

Lawyers for Roman Polanski, who fled the country more than 30 years ago on the eve of sentencing for having sex with a minor, on Monday asked that his case be moved from a Los Angeles justice system they say is too seriously tainted by its own misdeeds to treat the Oscar-winning filmmaker fairly. The request, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, was the latest twist in an extraordinary bid to have the decades-old case against Mr. Polanski dismissed, despite his status as a fugitive.

Although this is happening long after Mr. Polanski admitted guilt in the original incident, the effort has raised uncomfortable questions about how justice operates in a legal system that has never quite come to terms with Hollywood, despite this city’s long, and growing, list of famous malefactors.

In the last year alone, Mel Gibson (wrapping up an earlier drunk driving conviction), Phil Spector (in a second murder trial), Mackenzie Phillips (arrested for felony cocaine possession), and Dennis Farina (nabbed with a handgun at the airport) were among more than a dozen celebrities caught up in the criminal justice system here.

Online mug shots and the courtroom paparazzi swarm are now part of a ritual that has become almost as routine as a red-carpet walk.

Yet Mr. Polanski’s case has only become more troubling over the years. That happened as tawdry details of his own behavior — some of them described in grand jury testimony that was made public only in 2002 — were matched by accounts of official wrong-doing that occasionally seemed to mirror the tone, if not quite the magnitude, of dealings portrayed in Mr. Polanski’s Los Angeles noir classic, “Chinatown.”

The recent attempt to have the charges against Mr. Polanski dismissed rests on claims that a superior court judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, who died in 1993, was improperly coached by a now-retired deputy district attorney. The retired deputy, David Wells, openly described his encounters the judge in a documentary film, “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” which was released last year.

Among other things, Mr. Wells, in an interview in the film, said he prodded Judge Rittenband with a photograph of Mr. Polanski in the company of two girls, taken in Germany before the sentencing. “‘Judge,’ I said, ‘Look here. He’s flipping you off,’’’ Mr. Wells recalled.

Monday’s filing comes just one day before a date by which prosecutors were expected to file a response to Mr. Polanski’s request last month that his case be dropped. It seeks review by “an out-of-county” judicial officer, and argues that “the entire Los Angeles Superior Court should be disqualified from further hearing this case.”

The filing specifically claims that the court effectively pre-judged a crucial issue in the current dismissal motion — whether the case can be dropped without Mr. Polanski’s returning to the country. That occurred, the filing claims, when a public information officer, Alan Parachini, last month told the Los Angeles Times in an email that the court had a standing position that dismissal could not be considered unless Mr. Polanski ended his fugitive status.

Mr. Polanski’s filing said the court thus violated its own Rules of Judicial Conduct by ruling publicly on a key issue that had never been addressed, as Mr. Polanski had never in the past sought dismissal. Spokesmen for both the district attorney and Los Angeles Superior Court said their offices had not seen the filing and would have no immediate comment.

The request for a hearing outside of Los Angeles was filed on Mr. Polanski’s behalf by Chad S. Hummel with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, and by Bart Dalton, with Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams. Mr. Dalton is the son of Doug Dalton, a lawyer who represented Mr. Polanski against charges that were initially filed in 1977.

At the age of 75, Mr. Polanski remains active as a director — he has been working lately on a planned thriller called “The Ghost,” about a ghostwriter who uncovers secrets while finishing the memoir of a former British prime minister. But he is unlikely ever to resume a Hollywood career that was cut short by his flight.

“Roman Polanski has no plans ever to return to the United States,” said Doug Dalton.

“It’s certainly very rare that an entire bench is recused, but it does happen,” said Jean Rosenbluth, a law professor at the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law, speaking of Monday’s request to remove the case from Los Angeles. Prof. Rosenbluth said the move’s success might depend on the specifics of the supposedly prejudicial actions, which Mr. Polanski’s lawyers have sought to document with more than 100 pages of emails and other communications they obtained from the court’s information office, and included with their filing.

Mr. Polanski was initially indicted in 1977 on six felony charges that included rape, sodomy and providing a controlled substance to a 13-year-old girl, Samantha Geimer (who later identified herself publicly). He eventually pleaded guilty to one count of having sex with a minor, but left the country after becoming convinced that Judge Rittenband meant to reverse an earlier plan and send him back to prison, where Mr. Polanski had already undergone a 42-day psychiatric evaluation.

Famous as the director of films like “Rosemary’s Baby” and as the husband of Sharon Tate, who was slain by the Manson crime family, Mr. Polanski became the center of a media storm that was like a pre-shock to the later celebrity tsunamis of O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake.

In December of 1996, Mr. Dalton joined Roger Gunson, a deputy prosecutor who handled the Polanski case, in talking with a new judge, Larry Paul Fidler, about an arrangement that would have allowed Mr. Polanski to end his fugitive status without serving additional jail time.

But those talks dissolved amid a continuing dispute over their terms. Mr. Dalton and Mr. Gunson have said the judge insisted that proceedings with Mr. Polanski present be televised. The court’s spokesman, Mr. Parachini, has insisted that the judge made no such demand.

Mr. Polanski, in any case, chose to remain in France, where he now lives with his wife, the actress Emmanuelle Seigner, and their children. But he agreed to address the case yet again when the documentary, directed by Marina Zenovich, displayed an interview in which Mr. Wells, who frequently handled cases with Judge Rittenband, talked of having advised the judge about Mr. Polanski’s sentencing.

Last month, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Peter Espinoza set a Jan. 21 hearing on the request for dismissal. Notice of the hearing included a reminder that Mr. Polanski’s jeopardy, should he return without an iron-clad deal with authorities, is considerable: It now listed seven open criminal counts, including rape by use of drugs.

If anything, the case may have become more difficult to resolve over time. The sexual abuse of minors has become a more potent concern, and the recently released details of Mr. Polanski’s seduction of Ms. Geimer casts a particularly sordid light on the incident. By her account before grand jurors at the time, Ms. Geimer was plied with alcohol and Quaaludes, and objected repeatedly as she was subjected to vaginal and anal sex.

For the elder Mr. Dalton, who urged Mr. Polanski to pursue redress after reviewing the documentary, however, the issue turned from the original crime to a questions about the way in which authorities here handled it.

“This case before the court is not about him,” Mr. Dalton said. “It is about the criminal justice system in Los Angeles County.”

On Tuesday, attorneys for the director filed a complaint with the Los Angeles Superior Court seeking to have 31-year-old sexual misconduct charges dismissed. Fittingly enough, a docu about the filmmaker’s travails paved the way for latest attempt to clear Polanski’s name.

Polanski’s attorneys cite “extraordinary new evidence” that has surfaced with the release of Marina Zenovich’s “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired” as reason to reopen the case. The complaint zeroes in on interviews in which then-deputy district attorney David Wells admits discussing the case with Judge Lawrence Rittenband during legal proceedings from the 1970s and further charges the current District Attorney’s Office with misconduct in
statements made upon the docu’s June release…

Polanski’s camp last tried to resolve the case in 1997, but those negotiations fell apart over a judge’s supposed stipulation that the hearing be televised. Zenovich revised the end card of “Wanted and Desired” at the last minute due to conflicting statements about negotiations in 1997 to resolve the case, prompting Douglas Dalton and original prosecutor Roger Gunson to accuse the District Attorney’s Office of misspeaking. The complaint accuses deputy D.A. Richard Doyle of prosecutorial misconduct due to his recent statements.

See the article in the NY Times:

Film Cited in Request to Dismiss Polanski Case.
By Michael Cieply

Lawyers for the film director Roman Polanski, who fled the United States before his sentencing for statutory rape 30 years ago, asked a judge here to dismiss the case against him based on claims of judicial and prosecutorial wrongdoing revealed in a documentary film.

The request was filed with Judge David S. Wesley in the Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday afternoon. It cited the film “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” in which a former deputy district attorney described having coached the judge in the case, though he was not directly involved in the prosecution.

Here’s the full text of the entire article, in case the link goes bad:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/movies/03webpolanski.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1228453200&en=a32b625bf9928825&ei=5087%0A

Film Cited in Request to Dismiss Polanski Case
By MICHAEL CIEPLY
Published: December 2, 2008

LOS ANGELES — Lawyers for the film director Roman Polanski, who fled the United States before his sentencing for statutory rape 30 years ago, asked a judge here to dismiss the case against him based on claims of judicial and prosecutorial wrongdoing revealed in a documentary film.

The request was filed with Judge David S. Wesley in the Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday afternoon. It cited the film “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” in which a former deputy district attorney described having coached the judge in the case, though he was not directly involved in the prosecution.

The documentary examined Mr. Polanski’s arrest in 1977 for having sex with a 13-year-old girl and subsequent conviction after pleading guilty to one count of having sex with a minor. Mr. Polanski, who was 44 at the time of the events, spent 42 days in state prison during a psychiatric evaluation, but fled the country on the eve of sentencing in 1978 after learning that the judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, planned to return him to prison. Now 75 years old, Mr. Polanski has since lived in Paris.

Tuesday’s filing said Judge Rittenband, who is now dead, intentionally violated a plea agreement with Mr. Polanski after having engaged in what it called “repeated unethical and unlawful ex parte communications” with a deputy district attorney who was not involved in the prosecution, but was independently advising the judge.

They described on-camera interviews with the deputy, David Wells, by the documentary’s director, Marina Zenovich.

In one encounter, Mr. Wells told Ms. Zenovich “I was privy to almost everything that went on in that case.” At one point the deputy said he counseled the judge on sentencing. At another, he described prodding Judge Rittenband with a photograph of Mr. Polanski, then on bail, in the company of two young girls at an Oktoberfest celebration. “Look here. He’s flipping you off,” Mr. Wells said.

In general, fugitives do not have a right to demand such review. But judges have broad power to overturn convictions if they find that the court system has been abused. A hearing in the case is scheduled for Jan. 21.

The filing was made by Chad S. Hummel of the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and by Bart Dalton, the son of Douglas Dalton, who had represented Mr. Polanski in the case. Douglas Dalton joined in the new filing, though his son and Mr. Hummel now represent Mr. Polanski.

Celebrated as the director of “Chinatown” and “Rosemary’s Baby,” Mr. Polanski’s career foundered in the 1980s and ’90s, but he rebounded with a 2003 Oscar for best director for “The Pianist,” a Holocaust story that echoed his own experiences as a Jew in Poland during the German occupation.

Stephen L. Cooley, the current Los Angeles district attorney, reviewed the documentary earlier this year but did not change the stance of his office, which is that Mr. Polanski must surrender before any disposition of his case. Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cooley, could not be reached Tuesday.

A call to Mr. Wells, now retired, was not returned. In an earlier interview, Mr. Wells said he had engaged in no improper conduct, but had simply advised the judge on legal options.