Sentence me now, absent Polanski tells sex case judge

Fugitive film director Roman Polanski has asked a judge to sentence him in his absence over a child sex case, a Los Angeles court was told early today.

A letter signed by Polanski, on December 26 from Gstaad, Switzerland, where he is under house arrest, was filed by his lawyer.

It said Polanski (aged 76) understood he had the right to be present at all legal proceedings, but "I request that judgment be pronounced against me in my absence".

Deputy district attorney David Walgren objected to Polanski's request and demanded he "show his face" in court before he was sentenced.

"The people are adamant that a fugitive not dictate the court's processes," Mr Walgren told superior court judge Peter Espinoza.

The 'Chinatown' director fled the US in 1978 on the eve of sentencing after pleading guilty to one count of having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

Judge Espinoza accepted the letter but postponed a ruling because he wanted to see legal briefs that stated why sentencing Polanski in absentia was appropriate.

"It seems to me there is a fairly big question about what his possible sentence could be," the judge said, setting a January 22 date for a hearing on the issue.

Polanski is fighting extradition in Switzerland, a nation that will not extradite someone who is not required to serve at least six months in prison.

Prosecutors said Polanski was subject to a sentence of two years, but the defence said he had already served a sentence handed down by the original judge in the case, plus five months spent in a Swiss jail and more recently under house arrest.

Polanski was accused of plying Samantha Geimer with champagne and part of a Quaalude pill, then raping her during a modelling shoot at Jack Nicholson's house in 1977.

Polanski was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy. He later pleaded guilty in a plea bargain to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

He was sent to prison for a diagnostic study but the judge, who had promised no further jail time, reneged and said he was planning to sentence him more harshly.

Judge Espinoza said earlier this year there appeared to be substantial judicial misconduct, but Polanski had to return to the US to argue for the case to be thrown out.

Polanski's lawyer, Chad Hummel, quoted extensively today from a ruling last month by the California 2nd District Court of Appeal that held out a number of options, including sentencing without Polanski present.

He noted the court had recognised the urgency of a hearing to resolve the matter and suggested an immediate investigation into alleged misconduct by a judge and prosecutor in the 1977 case.

Judge Espinoza suggested Hummel was quoting selectively from the opinion. He did not say if he would hold an evidentiary hearing on the allegations of misconduct.

The appellate panel also said it believed the trial court could issue a sentence that did not require any further jailing of Polanski.

Today's hearing also raised the issue of a mystery witness who must be deposed because the judge said the person "may become unavailable".

Such language is often used about someone who is dying or planning to leave the country.

Polanski's lawyer had asked for a private conference in the judge's chambers, but a prosecutor prevailed in seeking to make the proceedings public.

Mr Walgren said media presence would prevent misconceptions of what might be said behind closed doors.