It was 1977. Hollywood was a different universe back then, a place where the lines between "artistic freedom" and "criminal behavior" were often blurred by cocaine and status. But the case of Roman Polanski and Samantha Geimer eventually shattered that illusion. Most people remember the headlines: the world-famous director, the 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson’s house, and the sudden flight to France.
Honestly, the details are a lot messier than a simple "he did it and ran" narrative. If you’ve ever looked into the court transcripts or read Geimer’s own book, The Girl, you’ve probably realized that this story isn’t just about a crime; it’s about a massive failure of the American judicial system that has dragged on for nearly fifty years.
The Mulholland Drive Incident
Basically, it started with a photo shoot. Polanski was guest-editing for French Vogue and convinced Geimer’s mother that he wanted to photograph the young teen. After an initial session, they ended up at Jack Nicholson’s house on Mulholland Drive. Nicholson wasn't home.
The legal documents are pretty graphic. According to Geimer’s grand jury testimony, Polanski gave her champagne and a portion of a Quaalude. What followed was a series of sexual acts—vaginal, oral, and anal—despite Geimer repeatedly saying "no."
Police arrested Polanski the next day at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. They found Quaaludes in his room. The charges were heavy: six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs and sodomy.
Why the Case Collapsed Into a Circus
Here is where it gets weird. Polanski didn't actually stand trial for rape. His lawyers negotiated a plea deal where he pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. In exchange, the more severe charges were dropped.
📖 Related: Who Is Plies Wife? The Truth About the Rapper’s Private Life
The judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, was a character. He was obsessed with the media attention. After Polanski served 42 days in a Chino state prison for a "diagnostic evaluation," the probation report recommended he be released on time served.
But Rittenband went rogue. He reportedly told lawyers in private that he was going to ignore the deal and send Polanski back to prison for a much longer stay. When Polanski’s legal team caught wind that the judge was reneging on the agreement, Polanski hopped on a plane to London and then to France. He’s been a fugitive ever since.
Samantha Geimer: The Victim Who Refused the Label
You’ve probably seen Geimer in interviews lately. She doesn't act like the "victim" the media wants her to be. For decades, she has been calling for the case to be dismissed.
In 2017, she actually stood in a Los Angeles courtroom and asked a judge to end the "40-year sentence" that she feels the legal system has imposed on her. She has argued that the constant media circus and the refusal of the courts to close the case has caused her more grief than the original incident.
"I didn't forgive him for him. I did it for me," Geimer once wrote.
She’s even been seen grabbing a friendly coffee with Polanski in Switzerland. It’s a dynamic that confuses a lot of people, but Geimer is very clear about one thing: she refuses to let 1977 define her entire life. She sees the DA’s office as using her case for political points rather than seeking actual justice for her.
Recent Legal Fallout and Settlements
As of 2026, the legal clouds around Polanski haven't cleared, though some have shifted. Just recently, in late 2024, a civil lawsuit involving a different Jane Doe from a 1973 incident was settled and dismissed.
These "legacy cases" keep popping up because California changed its laws to allow survivors of old crimes a window to sue. While Polanski remains in Europe—protected by the fact that France and Poland have largely refused to extradite their own citizens back to the US—the civil courts in California are still very active.
Polanski is now well into his 90s. The debate over whether he should be brought back in chains or allowed to die in exile continues to polarize the film world. Some see him as a monster who escaped justice; others, including Geimer, see a man who served his agreed-upon time and was then chased away by a corrupt judge.
What We Can Learn From the Case
This isn't just a celebrity scandal; it's a blueprint for how judicial misconduct can ruin a case's credibility for decades.
- Judicial Integrity Matters: The reason Polanski is still "free" is largely due to the documented bias of Judge Rittenband. If the judge had followed the law, the case would have likely ended in 1978.
- The Victim's Voice is Paramount: Samantha Geimer’s evolution from a 13-year-old girl to an advocate for her own narrative shows that victims aren't a monolith. Their desires for "justice" might not match the prosecutor’s.
- Laws Change, Consequences Don't: Recent civil settlements prove that even if you flee the country, the legal system has a long memory, especially with new "lookback" windows for sexual assault.
If you want to understand the full scope of this, you should look into the 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. It uses actual court recordings to show exactly how the judge’s behavior gave Polanski the legal opening to flee. You can also read Samantha Geimer’s memoir to see the story from the person who actually lived it.
The best way to respect the history here is to look at the primary sources—the transcripts and the personal accounts—rather than the simplified headlines.
Next Steps:
- Review the unsealed transcripts of Roger Gunson, the original prosecutor, which were made public in 2022.
- Read Samantha Geimer’s book The Girl to understand her perspective on forgiveness and the legal system.
- Follow the current status of the California civil courts regarding other 1970s-era allegations against Polanski.