http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art … wD981O1K00A judge on Thursday dismissed Roman Polanski's bid to throw out a decades-old sex case because the fugitive director failed to appear in court to press his request.
His lawyer, Chad Hummel, notified the judge earlier this week that Polanski would not appear because he believed his presence was irrelevant to the dismissal motion.
The judge took the bench briefly and said that because "Mr. Polanski doesn't intend to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court," his motion for dismissal would be denied.
Hummel maintains that the issue of whether Polanski's rights were violated in his 1977 case can be decided in his absence. He has said he will seek review by an appeals court.
Polanski, 75, pleaded guilty in 1977 to unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl and then fled to France. He recently sought dismissal on grounds of misconduct by the now-deceased judge who had arranged a plea bargain and then reneged on it. Polanski risked arrest on a fugitive warrant if he returned to Los Angeles.
"The misconduct is plainly evident from the existing record," Hummel said of the behavior of the deceased judge. He also noted that Espinoza's refusal to dismiss the case is contrary to the wishes of the victim, Samantha Geimer, who joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal. She has said she wants the case to be over.
So the now woman then girl wants the case dismissed and for it to be buried between them. Seems she holds on ill will so should the courts dismiss the case since there was misconduct with the judge and since the victim wants a dismissal or has Polanski made her choice and face the consequences forever and the case never be dismissed and he never let back in the country?
