Why was appeals court so sympathetic to Roman Polanski?

By Eriq Gardner

The 70-page denial of Roman Polanski's attempt to end his legal saga is surprising for its sympathetic review of events in the decades-old statutory rape case.

The three-judge appellate panel goes to extreme lengths to describe the factors that compelled Polanski to flee the country after admitting his crime in 1977 and suggests a great deal of disturbance at allegations of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in the case.

On page 35, the justices decide that although Polanski's allegations possibly present a "very systemic issue of injustice and misconduct," the trial court didn't abuse its discretion by denying Polanski's request for relief.

The appeals court is kind enough to give the director his options now, starting on page 46. Most intriguing is the suggestion that his lawyers can request Polanski be sentenced in absentia. This would still be subject to a trial court's discretion, of course, but the justices write: "We are confident that the trial court could fashion a legal sentence that results in no further incarceration for Polanski."

Who says appeals courts aren't compassionate?