3age of 14 (Pen. Code,
); unlawful sexual intercourse (§ 261.5
); rape by use of drugs (§ 261, subd. (3)
(§ 288a, subds. (a) & (c)); and sodomy (§ 286,subds. (a) & (c)
). Polanski initially pleaded not guilty.
The district attorney‟s office agreed to a plea bargain with Polan
ski at the requestof the family of the victim, Samantha Geimer,
who was 13 years old at the time of the
offense. In light of Geimer‟s age and fears about the trauma that an extremely high profile trial would cause for her, Geimer‟s family, through couns
el, advocated stronglyfor a plea bargain to protect her from further harm. On August 8, 1977, Polanski changedhis plea from not guilty to guilty on count 3, unlawful sexual intercourse. In the courseof his plea, Polanski acknowledged that the trial court would determine whether he wouldreceive a felony or misdemeanor sentence; that his punishment could range fromprobation, to up to one year in county jail, to 20 years in state prison; and that the judge
would not determine Polanski‟s sentence until h
e had received a report from theProbation Department and heard the arguments of counsel.The trial court then instituted mandatory proceedings to determine whetherPolanski was a mentally disordered sex offender. The court appointed two psychiatrists
Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
This offense is now numbered as section 288, subdivision (a).
This statute has been substantially revised since 1977. Were Polanski charged
under the current statute, based on his age and the victim‟s age, he would presumably be
charged under current section 261.5, subdivision (d).
This offense is now numbered as section 261, subdivision (a)(3).
This offense is now referred to as oral copulation, and the charged offense is nownumbered as section 288a, subdivision (c)(1).
This offense is now numbered as section 286, subdivision (c)(1).
Although we customarily would not identify the victim of the offense by name inorder to protect her privacy, Geimer has elected to relinquish what anonymity she hadand to proceed under her own name both in public statements and in filings with thiscourt. In light of her decision, we use her full name here.