An Associated Press report this morning cites documents in the Roman Polanski extradition case that put the blame for the scapegrace director’s free pass on the U.S. Department of Justice. According to AP,
The Swiss government asked the U.S. Justice Department to release sealed transcripts in the Roman Polanski case just days before a Los Angeles judge was told that the Swiss did not request that information, according to a letter from Swiss officials that points to apparent miscommunication in the case.
The officials said that the denial of access to the information was the key factor in the refusal to extradite the film maker to the U.S., according to the letter to the U.S. Embassy in Bern, Switzerland.
A district attorney’s spokeswoman said their office was never notified of the Swiss request and did not know that the Justice Department had turned it down.
The letter dated Monday was obtained by The Associated Press on Wednesday night. It provided a time line of when the request was filed and when it was turned down. The letter blamed the denial of extradition solidly on the refusal by the Justice Department to show transcripts of testimony by the film director’s original prosecutor to Swiss officials.
“Since the additional documents requested were not transmitted in full, extradition of Roman Polanski to the United States of America is thus denied,” said the letter. Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said she had no comment on the matter.
Why did the DOJ refuse to provide documents to the Swiss in this high-profile case? It appears that Polanski’s attorney, Reid Weingarten, is a close friend of Eric Holder.
Holder is no stranger to extradition flubs. As President Clinton’s deputy attorney general, Holder recommended a pardon for the convicted fugitive Marc Rich, who cheated on his taxes to the extent of millions of dollars and was convicted on 65 counts of tax evasion.
Congressional investigators should subpoena Holder’s phone log and email to determine what communication he had with the Polanski legal team.
July 15th, 2010 | 12:49 pm
Nothing this Administration does surprises me. tom
July 15th, 2010 | 1:57 pm
If it’s deliberate, is it a flub?
Now, American woman, and young females in particular, can count the Holder Deoartment of “Justice” with Aruba, Switzerland, France, and the presence of a certain former Democrat president as places where they, and their bodies, are not assured legal protection from violation.
Watch out for the stampede of feminists seeking justice. Not.
July 15th, 2010 | 3:04 pm
Before we get carried away, one of my closest friends works at the office of international affairs, criminal division, at DOJ, the office directly in charge of extraditions. She worked for a while in this case, and at the very least I can assure you that she, as well as all the other grassroots employees in the office, were hard at work to get him extradited and completely indignant at what he did. I really mean all the office, as the subject was much discussed. And, again, they were the ones directly in charge of dealing with this case. I don’t know any details beyond that, but I do know very well that all these legal employees of DOJ are very disappointed.
July 15th, 2010 | 3:15 pm
Mike,
I am asking the question, not giving an answer. When the AG has a history of shady dealings with fugitives who have an inside track with Democratic administrations, the question has to be asked.
July 15th, 2010 | 7:48 pm
It’s a fair question, especially given this administration’s “Chicago” style.
Mike, it sounds like you are familiar with the criminal justice system. Would you not agree that there is occasionally pressure from the top at a prosecutor’s office (including DOJ) to either focus on a certain case or type of crime or alternatively, back off or go slow?
July 15th, 2010 | 9:44 pm
I have a question, too. I’m pretty ignorant of how these extradition cases work, but it seems to me to be a bit insulting that Swiss officials would need to evaluate sealed transcripts from our legal proceedings to determine whether or not they should extradite Polanski. What, exactly, were they going to check? Were they planning a kind of secondary trial of Polanski to determine whether our courts rendered what the Swiss officials considered to be the correct verdict/sentence? Were they, in other words, attempting to stand in judgment of our legal system? If so, I can understand a certain hesitation on the part of the Department of Justice to hand over the sealed documents. If not, I can’t figure out why the Swiss would need the transcripts to begin with.
July 15th, 2010 | 10:57 pm
JB in CA – It seems that DOJ was only acting (properly) as a go-between for the local court and district attorney (DA) in Calif. and the Swiss authorities. Transcripts for this local criminal proceeding would be under control of the local authorities, not DOJ. Based on the excerpt in the above article, it seems as if DOJ never gave the local Calif. court and DA a chance to decide if they wished to release the relevant documents to the Swiss.
July 16th, 2010 | 1:37 am
“Did Bush have advance warning that 9/11 was about to happen?” To ask a question is sometimes to insinuate an answer.
It’s not clear at all whether the DOJ is more to blame than the Swiss here — the DOJ fought for extradition only to see the Swiss government reject the request on grounds that don’t seem very substantive. If anything, DOJ probably devoted more resources and attention to this case than they would have if it had involved anyone else. 30-year-old statutory rape cases at the state level do not generally command the attention of the highest levels of government.
July 18th, 2010 | 2:04 am
Thanks, MarcH. That fills in a little more of the background, but I’m assuming that the request for extradition is a federal matter and, therefore, ultimately a matter for the DOJ. If the DOJ was dragging its feet because it was concerned that the request for the transcripts might be an attempt on the part of the Swiss to overstep the boundaries of national sovereignty and “retry” one of our cases, any local issues that the CA authorities might have had with handing over the transcripts would be moot. And, again, I think that such reservations on the part of the DOJ are plausible. For why else would the Swiss need the transcripts of the case. Other documents, sure. But the transcripts?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact