Blogs and Stories
The Lost Polanski Transcripts
Ina Fassbender / Reuters
The idea that Roman Polanski was done in by an unscrupulous judge is a myth. Marcia Clark studies the startling transcripts from his 1977 guilty plea.
Ever since he fled Los Angeles for Europe, Roman Polanski and his defenders have been putting out a story: he had to run because Judge Laurence Rittenband, after having promised not to impose any jail time past a 42-day psychiatric evaluation for having sex with a 13-year-old girl, had changed his mind and intended send him to state prison. It’s a myth.
How do I know this? From Roman Polanski.
“What is the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse?” asked the prosecutor.
“It’s one to fifteen – twenty years in State Prison,” responded Polanski.
The transcript of Polanski’s August 8, 1977 courtroom guilty plea is one of the lengthiest, most thorough pleas I’ve ever seen. Reading it allows one to literally travel back in time to the Carter years, and hear all the players—Judge Rittenband, prosecutor Roger Gunson and, yes, Polanski—in their own exact words. No interpretations, no spin.
First, Gunson read out the litany of charges Polanski initially faced:
“Mr. Polanski, you are charged in Information A-334139 with the crimes of Furnishing Drugs to a Minor, Lewd or Lascivious Acts upon a Child under 14 year of Age, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, Rape by Use of Drugs, Perversion, and Sodomy, all felonies committed on or about March 10th, 1977.”
The single crime Polanski pled guilty to, unlawful sexual intercourse, was the lightest of the charges filed against him. But even so, because the victim was so young, the judge had the power to require Polanski to register as a sex offender, something Gunson was quick to remind the director.
• Full coverage: The Polanski Scandal
• Marcia Clark: Polanski’s Lost Alibi
• Robert Goolrick: Polanski’s Victim and Me “Mr. Polanski, because this offense involved a girl under the age of 14, it is mandatory that MDSO proceedings be instituted. MDSO means Mentally Disordered Sex Offender. If you are found to be an MDSO, you would have to register that fact with the law enforcement officer of the community in which you resided.”
Gunson then went on to ask: “….on March 10, 1977, the day you had sexual intercourse with the complaining witness, how old did you believe her to be?”
Polanski conferred with his lawyer and then answered: “She was 13.”
Gunson: “Did you understand that she was 13 on March 10, 1977, when you had sexual intercourse with her?”
Again, Polanski conferred with his lawyer, then answered: “Yes.”
So Polanski knew he faced the possibility of becoming a registered sex offender and admitted in open court that he was subject to that penalty because he knowingly had sexual contact with a girl who was 13 years old.
He also knew the sentence Polanski he was facing: “What is the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse?” asked Gunson.
“It’s one to fifteen—twenty years in State Prison,” responded Polanski.
“Do you understand it is also possible that you could be placed on probation, with or without being required to serve up to one year in the County Jail?” the prosecutor next asked
“Yes,” responded Polanski.
Look Who's Irish!
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Edwards Sex Tape Details
Investigative journalist and syndicated columnist Diane Dimond has covered the Michael Jackson story since 1993 when she first broke the news that the King of Pop was under investigation for child molestation. She is author of the book, Be Careful Who You Love—Inside the Michael Jackson Case. She lives in New York with her husband, broadcast journalist Michael Schoen.
The Pure Greed of Obama's Phony Health-Care Reform
Michael Moore is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker and author. He directed and produced Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko. He has also written seven books, most recently, Mike’s Election Guide 2008.
The Race Card and the Jackson Doctor
Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, served as a columnist for Justice Magazine and is finishing her debut crime novel.
Is Polanski the New O.J.?
Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, served as a columnist for Justice Magazine and is finishing her debut crime novel.
Polanski's Lost Alibi
Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, served as a columnist for Justice Magazine and is finishing her debut crime novel.
dclaire
Money enables arrogance. Money enables the belief that famous people are special.
After reading the young girl's testimony, what haunts me is the last thing she said Polanski said to her which was something like "I was hoping I would not do this to you." I don't know but this sounds like this was a problem that he knew he could not control. Will we ever know how many others?
mmorgan1969s
Yes, 13 or 14 is far too young for most females to be having sexual intercourse. And Polanski has admitted since that it was a terrible thing he did. But how about a little contest here:
All that anyone knows, with the exception of Polanski or the girl, is that Polanski pleaded guilty to something that would not have been a crime if it had occurred a few weeks later. Maybe there is a reason that the girl and her family REQUESTED, at the time, that Polanski NOT go to jail. The girl was not your typical 13 year-old at the time. She was not bad or crazy, just sophisticated for her age; she already had a lover. and She was offered a small fraction of a pill she had already been taking Qualudes for years. Polanski did not sneak the pill into her drink like a "rapist" would do.
The young lady stated in her testimony that "But I wasn't fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go." Is it at all possible that she and her family were after $$$. Because that is what they reportedly received in a private settlement, and lots of it. I would give Polanski 6 months for stupidity and the mother one year. The young lady can keep the reported $500,000; She seems nice, well adjusted and, now in her forties, wants Polanski to live out the remaining years of his life outside of a prison. Amen to that. Quick aside: I would kill anyone that did that to my daughter.
mmorgan1969s
Yes, 13 or 14 is far too young for most females to be having sexual intercourse. And Polanski has admitted since that it was a terrible thing he did. But how about a little contest here:
All that anyone knows, with the exception of Polanski or the girl, is that Polanski pleaded guilty to something that would not have been a crime if it had occurred a few weeks later. Maybe there is a reason that the girl and her family REQUESTED, at the time, that Polanski NOT go to jail. The girl was not your typical 13 year-old at the time. She was not bad or crazy, just sophisticated for her age; she already had a lover. and She was offered a small fraction of a pill she had already been taking Qualudes for years. Polanski did not sneak the pill into her drink like a "rapist" would do.
The young lady stated in her testimony that "But I wasn't fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go." Is it at all possible that she and her family were after $$$. Because that is what they reportedly received in a private settlement, and lots of it. I would give Polanski 6 months for stupidity and the mother one year. The young lady can keep the reported $500,000; She seems nice, well adjusted and, now in her forties, wants Polanski to live out the remaining years of his life outside of a prison. Amen to that. Quick aside: I would kill anyone that did that to my daughter.
isabella
Here's some context. The girl was 13. Minors cannot consent to an act that is a crime. Even if they "wish" to participate, the law exists to protect them if their innocence - or ignorance, puts them in a situation legally deemed to be harmful to all children of that age.
Whoopi Goldberg and ladies of The View take note. Whoopie: "It wasn't a rape rape". Ignorance of this dimension should not be allowed on our television screens. Is it simple ignorance or really sicko morality?
Laws apply generally for a reason. They apply to all victims and to all perpetrators, including the rich and famous.
Polanski admitted performing a sexual act with a child. If the parents knowingly put the child into a dangerous situation they should have been charged with that crime. If they weren't charged, there was insufficient evidence.
None of this changes Polanski's position. He was found guilty by a jury. He absconded before sentencing. He should pay the price, which would normally include a serious penalty on top of the sentence for the crime. If he escapes with a rap on the knuckles, the world will know that Hollywood's perverted values have corrupted the justice system.
mmorgan1969s
Yes, 13 or 14 is far too young for most females to be having sexual intercourse. And Polanski has admitted since that it was a terrible thing he did. But how about a little context here:
All that anyone knows, with the exception of Polanski or the girl, is that Polanski pleaded guilty to something that would not have been a crime had it occurred a few weeks later (Elvis lived with a 14 year-old he later married with the consent of the parents!). Maybe there is a reason that the girl and her family REQUESTED, at the time, that Polanski NOT go to jail. The girl was not your typical 13 year-old at the time. She was not bad or crazy, just sophisticated for her age; she already had a lover. She was offered a small fraction of a pill (Qualudes) she had already been taking for years. Polanski did not sneak the pill into her drink like a "rapist" would do.
The young lady stated in her testimony that "But I wasn't fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go." Is it at all possible that she and her family were after $$$. They reportedly received plenty of it in a private settlement. I would give Polanski 6 months for stupidity and the mother one year. The young lady can keep the reported $500,000; She seems nice, well adjusted and, now in her forties, wants Polanski to live out the remaining years of his life outside of a prison. Amen to that. Quick aside: I would kill anyone that did that to my daughter.
Tully1
*Polanski pleaded guilty to something that would not have been a crime had it occurred a few weeks later*
WRONG. Better go read that statute. Age of consent in CA is (and was then) 18. She would have had to be four YEARS and change older for it not lay only in the evaluation requirements and sentencing guidelines, not the crime itself. It would still have been a crime. Not to mention the other charges that were proposed to be dropped, all of which would still apply.
And of course had he done it today we could likely add charges for the production of child pornography, which in CA (assuming no federal charges were filed) can get you 8 years and a lifetime of registration as a sex offender.
Betelgeuse
Now wait a minute. Don't go color this girl as a druggie slut. Or her family as dysfunctional, money-mongering or, worse, liars.
According to her testimony published by the Smoking Gun, she had only taken the drug in question once before after she found it when she was ten. That does not mean she was a druggie. That means she was a normal, curious 10 year old in a world where you can apparently find drugs lying around in the open. She testified that she was offered more than half of the pill, not a tiny fraction. She further stated that she would not have taken it if she hadn't been so drunk all ready. Drunk off of the alcohol that Polanski provided... to A MINOR. Eight years too young to be drinking, and he put that glass in her hand and had her drink it as part of the 'poses' he requested of her for the "French Vogue" photos.
Furthermore, she stated that she had had sex twice prior to the rape. Two times. She did not specify how those other times occurred either. For all you know they could have been rape as well.
Finally, why the hell do you think her mother does not want to piss off a well known, rich and powerful filmmaker? This rapist hangs out with Nicholson and has Woody-freaking-Allen petitioning to get him out of jail. Do you think that perhaps she may have thought it better to not piss off Hollywood and use the money to get her daughter the best psychologist money can buy? Do you think that they possibly could have decided that instead of enduring more time in courts and being under the eagle eyes of the media for the next several years, perhaps it might be better to drop this whole thing so Samantha could have some semblance of a normal teen-aged life?
Finally, do you really think that a 13 year-old child could have fought off a 43 year-old man?
scott1607
Interesting story, I'm glad Ms. Clark included excerpts from the actual transcript. However, two things jumped out at me:
1) What Polanski did was atrocious. no doubt, and he deserves to be punished. But I don't give much credence to the importance Ms. Clark gives to Polanski's answers to the court's questions. Yes, his answers are binding and show that he SHOULD have known what was going to happen, but on a realistic level, most defendants are just parroting what their attorneys tell them to say. He was probably asking his attorney why I am answering yes to this and his attorney said oh everything's fine, just a formality, say yes and later on nothing's going to happen, we've made a deal etc. etc.
2) I don't think the mother should get off so easily as far as moral condemnation. You can't come along, it would inhibit your daughter? As soon as any legitimate mother heard "inhibit" you would think the maternal instinct would kick in and alarm bells go off...
EllenFrench
good point, s16, LA is such a bizarre reality-mothers shopping their daughters in general
pclayton
That doesn't excuse what Polanski is guilty of--if he had a moral bone in his body the whole scenario would not have transpired (ie, a "photo shoot"). The fact that there are "reality-mothers shopping their daughters in LA" is not the question here, it's about Polanski's guilt and extradition.
HiredGoons
Despite language barriers I'm sure he still knew she was 13 and that what he was doing was wrong.
pencilbox
As for your first point, s16, that's what appeals are for.
And attorneys, too, for that matter. If they didn't instruct their clients on how to answer the court, they would be denying one of their greatest responsibilities.
So, no excuses there.
judgeinmillvalley
Of course there are those who will say, "She was asking for it," as people have always done in their attempts to justify this kind of behavior from an adult male. To some, anything goes, and if it's a celebrity of talent, well, then more than anything goes. The age is the key here--even if she looked older, he knew how old she was. Even if she were willing, the law is based on the idea that a girl of that age is not able to give informed "consent."
HiredGoons
key word = "law."
aperturemad
Lawyers are paid to lie.
Marcia Clark lost the biggest case of her career.
Really, who cares what she thinks?
pclayton
I do. I think she proved her point well.
citivas
Are you an idiot? Ignore everything but the transcript . It is a matter of record. And what's you're point anyway? Polanski is scum, period.
Rdschenkel
If lawyers lie to the Court, they can be sanctioned and subject to attorney grievances. If lawyers lie to their client, they are subject to attorney grievances.
HiredGoons
Did you ever think that Marcia Clark lost the case because she didn't lie?
cbl99201
As everyone except apparently Ms. Clark is well aware, once a plea deal is arranged between the prosecution and the defense, the defendant is required to lie in court by saying no such deal has been arrived at. Otherwise, he will not recieve his plea bargain deal. So his statements "prove" nothing whatsoever.
Bilbil
Wrong. When a defendant agrees to a negotiated dispostion for a specific term, that specific term is laid out on the record, and in precise detail. And, as everyone who knows about these things (which clearly does not include you, cbl99201) knows, the prosecution and the defense have no power to "arrange" a plea deal unless the judge signs off on it. Given that the transcript unambiguously and explcitly shows that the judge did not approve anything more than what was stated on the record, Polanski's statements prove that when he says he left because he feared the judge would go back on a deal is simply a lie.
brownjackson
If there was no deal than why did a photo change the judges mind, which supposedly wasnt made up yet? What goes on record and what people agree to behind closed doors are two different things e.g. I want that struck from the record, comes to mind. Anyhow this case gets attention for the wrong reasons. Why is our legal system so incapable of allowing officers to perform their job that many resort to breaking the law because they know the guy is guilty but cant prove it. Remember the O.J. trial, cops and the prosecutors were too ambitious and didnt respect the law. Cant blame rich people for buying there way out even when they're guilty because the servants of the system cant follow the law themselves. Dont expect people to be perfect, so I guess we have to amend some laws.
abobinmn
Get the little pervert back in a US court and adjudicate this matter once and for all.
Baddchild
What a sad and pathetic bunch these hollywood elitists are to defend this pedofile. People are seduced by money and celebrity, thus giving People like OJ, Kennedy, and Clinton a pass on the most egregous of acts. This woman and her mother were seduced by it and paid with a 13 yo's rape. Being seduced by celebrity happens all the time but having people like Scorscese and Whoopi defending it is just sick.
"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see?" Polanski told Amis. "But ... F%$#ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to F%$# young girls. Juries want to F%$# young girls. Everyone wants to F%$# young girls!" Roman Polanski 1979
I wonder how many in hollywood would leave their 13 yo with this guy.
beastie13
Clinton? Bill and Monica were consenting adults weren't they?
hockeydog
Bottom line question is how many other children has this perv diddled with after he left the U.S.? I say hang the little bastard, along with every other child molester.
Revelation after revelation, Pete Townsend, Papa John Phillips, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen,..., I say hang em all.
Cashmoney
You, Hockeydog, are why we have defense lawyers and courts and cops and prisons and everything else that makes up the criminal justice system in America -- to protect ordinary folks from people like you.
HiredGoons
I don't agree with Hockeydog's sentiments, but 'ordinary folks?' In this case, hardly.
janjamm
Clark knows this, why is she distorting this common trial routing: Per cb199201 - "As everyone except apparently Ms. Clark is well aware, once a plea deal is arranged between the prosecution and the defense, the defendant is required to lie in court by saying no such deal has been arrived at. Otherwise, he will not recieve his plea bargain deal. So his statements "prove" nothing whatsoever."
Shame on Clark.
pclayton
Polanski is apparently great at lying and he didn't do it because he was expected to, he was trying to stay out of jail. Regardless of his plea bargain, he admtted what he did that night and his story concurs with that of his victim. Marcia Clark doesn't have to prove anything to you, she is simply explaining that his testimony differed from what others have reported.
Rdschenkel
Shame on you, that's not correct.
wakeupastc
WRONG janjamm - this is the kind of "disinformation" that circles around because know-nothings like you talk nonsense. What real lawyers know is that what they've got on the record is all they can count one, and no they do NOT lie about having no deal. They've either got one, or they haven't. They can "hope" all they want, but no judge is bound by anything that. And what a defendant says during a guilty plea is proof positive of whatever he says - and that's why prosecutors take a factual basis for a plea: because if anything goes wrong later, they can use it to prove the defendant admitted the charge. Both you and cb199201 need to shut up and save your drivel for something you know about.
Shiga66
it is a plea hearing. Polanski pled guilty to one charge. How the transcript lays out the protocol that Polanski knowing and willingly pled guilty is close to setting in stone the plea. it doesn't matter if he disagrees or is lying during the hearing. The hearing shows Polanski consciously pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
In a sense, this is his trial along with verdict.
He is at the mercy of the court. If he feels the court is acting harshly, appeal the court's decision. A defendant isn't the judge of his or her punishment.
No matter if Judge Rittenband acted unethically after the guilty plea was made by Polanski, the guilty plea isn't going to be easy to be vacated by a court. As the transcript states, the five other charges aren't technically dismiss until the sentence is carried out.
robjh1
I knew it. Sorry Whoopi. He is guilty and is a pervert. To think of all people you would know the difference. Put his arse in jail. The PERVERT, Pedophile. Sex offender deviant.
"and we are not saved..."
prhama
Ms. Clarke should know better than this. I am NOT a supporter of Polanski, but she knows that this is the typical language of all plea agreements. He knew that his lawyer and the prosecutor and the Judge had agreed on what would happen. She's making it sound like this is revalatory when it's completely meaningless.
EllenFrench
Clark calls it. Let the facts speak for themselves.
pclayton
Why is everyone looking for a way to exhonerate this creep? The very sight of his smug little old face makes me cringe when I imagine what he did to that 13-year-old girl. He is/was a Hollywood darling who would have no trouble drumming up dates among the rich, beautiful, and famous; yet, his taste is obviously for young girls. It's tiring to see people pick apart what was said, what was promised, and what happened when the story is clear. There are no excuses for a mature man who preys on teenaged girls (or boys for that matter) no matter where and no matter whom--nor are there any excuses for those looking under the bed for reasons to excuse him and allow him to continue on his merry way as he has for 30 plus years.
He did what he did; he ran away rather than serve his time, whatever that might have been; now he wants to be excused. Either extradite the pig and pick up where they left off or never again allow him to make his "art" (LOL) in this country--Europe can keep him where apparently they don't mind harboring men who prey on teenagers.
Cashmoney
No one is defending what Polanski did. It was disgusting.
And knock it off about Europeans tolerating kiddie-diddlers. They don't.
All we're debating is, what do we do now? The legal case against him was always a mess and over 32 years it's only gotten messier. LA county DAs haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in this one.
Polanski deserves to be punished. But only after a fair trial. Given everything that's happened, can he get a fair trial in LA?
And according to which law? The laws in 1977 which were so lenient that he could plea bargain was what effectively a 42-day stay in a state mental hospital. Today's laws would send him away for life.
Why are you so tough on Polanski? Why are you angrier and more outraged than the victim herself is? Are you just as outraged when those Catholic priests diddled their altar boys?
My guess is, Polanski bugs you because you're fighting the culture wars against Hollywood liberals. You want to stick it to him as a way to stick it to them. That Hollywood liberals are morons who say stupid things every time they open their mouths makes it that much easier for you to feel outraged.
But don't let your anger at them lead you to deny him a fair trial. He has that right.
njoy-d-ride
I don't have a clue about the 1977 laws, but if what you say is true, he should have stayed then instead of having to face the law now.
Embers
I think you're off on that, cashmoney. It's not about a culture war against Hollywood liberals. That's ridiculous. It's about justice. And I still AM just as outraged by the Catholic priest scandal, thank you very much.
Yes, I want Polanski to get a fair trial. I believe that a fair trial will result in Polanski's being sent to prison (where he will hopefully be raped anally, orally, and vaginally).
Shiga66
A judge has to allow Polanski to withdraw his plea and vacate the plea deal. In which Polanski will be tried for six charges. Each charge is a huge minefield for the defense. If Polanski is found not guilty for child molestation, for example, he could be found guilty for statutory rape, giving narcotics to a minor, sodomy etc.
Every word that Polanski has said about this case after he fled will be used against him, from newspaper interviews, to his autobiography. If the LAPD still an evidence file on this case, which includes Samantha Geimer's panties with seminal fluid on them, those can be tested for DNA.
Polanski can put up a good defense, by hiring the best criminal defense lawyers, but he will probably spend more time in jail waiting for and during a trial than being sentence for the original plea deal.
Going to trial is more of gamble for both the prosecution and defense, but that is the reason for making a plea deal in the first place..
Polanski already pled guilty to felony. There is no need for a trial. Polanski fled before sentencing, this is about a felon who try to short circuit the legal process.
The victim in this case wants to stop reliving this ordeal. It is frustrating, feeling powerless then and now, and no sense of control of events..
Tmikes
Since you seem not to know this: Polanski hasn't made a movie in this country since he fled in 1977. So, I imagine he would like the deal you propose.
WiseHorn
MC---are you looking to write your own book about this? Seriously...six pages of the SOS?! You haven't revealed anything new.
fsrg25
I dont know what the debate is....give Roman the deal he always thought he was going to get (i.e. no jail time for a horrendous rape) BUT he has no deal for his other crime - FLIGHT - for that he deserves to be treated like anyone else and serve the time he owes.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.