L.A. District Attorney Steve Cooley says Roman Polanski is “running out of options to avoid extradition” and his desire to have sealed testimony in his 33-year-old rape case opened is “entirely meritless.”
In a brief filed on Thursday, Cooley and Deputy D.A. David Walgren countered the motion from a March 18 request from the Oscar-winning director’s lawyers seeking to release transcripts of the testimony of Roger Gunson, the original prosecutor in the case.
A hearing on the request is scheduled for 2 p.m. Monday in downtown L.A.
(Read the full document here.)
The defense’s contention is that Gunson’s testimony — which was conducted before a magistrate on Feb. 26, March 9 and March 12, 2010 — confirms judicial misconduct by Lawrence Rittenband, the original judge in the case.
On April 23, the California 2nd District Court of Appeals rejected the defense’s 68-page petition to release the transcripts and an its allegation of prosecutorial misconduct during Polanski’s 1977 trial for raping and sodomizing an under-age girl.
That decision opened the door for Polanski possibly being extradited back from Switzerland, where he is under house arrest, to the United States by September.
In a rambling online thesis on May 2, Polanski accused Cooley of using the case to drum up publicity for his run for California attorney general.
Swiss authorities informed TheWrap on April 23 that they would “study the decision” by the appeals court and “make our conclusions" in the future.
In Thursday’s brief, the D.A.’s office states that Gunson’s testimony was only taken as a precaution “should Mr. Gunson, at a future date, be unavailable when (Polanski) is finally in the custody of Los Angeles law enforcement.”
The former prosecutor is currently undergoing treatment for cancer.
The brief goes on to say that they believe preserving Gunson’s “conditional examination” is important and that it should remain sealed unless there is hearing on the case and the former prosecutor is unable to attend.
The D.A.’s office also says that unsealing the testimony, as the case stands now, is likely a moot point because Polanski has “made it so abundantly clear that he would never willingly appear before this court.”
The brief, which makes no secret of its distain for Polanski, concludes “although the defendant might find this result contrary to his demands, he has an immediate solution available to him — he can surrender to the court’s jurisdiction so that the witness, and others, can testify at the sentencing hearing and all matters can be aired in full and complete proceeding.”
