Wynona Ryder in court 10/28/2002 (1 Viewer)

[Brian Perry]

I also find that for such a high profile case, the prosecution's witnesses are being made to look like complete idiots. First is the chief guard who is being made out to have a vendetta against Ryder, then the peeping investigator who can't keep her facts straight. Add this to the taped evidence (or lack thereof), and this looks to be heading for an aquittal.

Jeff,
Where are you getting your news from? The news sources I'm following say that the witnesses and evidence thus far are "damaging" and "gloomy" for Ryder.
1. Chief guard with vendetta. Unless he tried to frame her, how can he have a vendetta? They claim he said "I'm going to nail her one way or another." I assume this was said after he saw her stealing, and it would seem like a perfectly reasonable comment. Don't you think a cop chasing a robber might say to his partner, "I'd love to nail this jerk"?
2. Peeping investigator. What I read was that she claimed she actually saw Ryder removing tags. Pretty damaging testimony from a Saks employee, considering some people here are saying Saks didn't want to press charges.
3. Taped evidence or lack thereof. I don't think it even matters what they have or don't have on tape. Most stores don't even have cameras; does that mean shoplifters get a free pass?
This is the type of crap I'm referring to: non-issues that may confuse a jury or might enable them to feel justified in acquitting her. (Of course, I agree it's the prosecution's fault if they can't try the case correctly.)

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I may be wrong, but I don't think the defense is required to supply their strategy - if they did, how would the OJ glove fiasco have transpired?

Ryder's counsel would be the ones advising her what or what not to say in public. If the DA is bent on taking the case to trial, the defense can just keep their trump to themselves.

So far we have two noncredible witnesses, a tape which doesn't show what it is supposed to, and evedence to the contrary on three points: the rustling of the jackets (video evidence shows it was another customer), the smoking jacket (which Ryder didn't near, and which was only addressed a day later), and conflicting testimony from the two security personnel.

As for Hollywood people being on the jury, people have a right to trial by their peers. There is nothing suspect about that, if there were, the prosecution would have argued for their dismissal.

 

[Brian Perry]

As for Hollywood people being on the jury, people have a right to trial by their peers.

Peers are one thing--people you actually know or have had business dealings with are another.

 

[Patrick_S]

This whole thing reeks! I really can't wait to find out how this turns out. She asked for 'peers', so they got her people that work in Hollywood. Isn't that neat?

First of all you can't request who makes up the original jury pool. During the juror selection process you do have the ability to dismiss a certain number of individuals without cause but the prosecution also has that ability. Once you use up your allotted number of freebees you can then challenge with cause. In those instances the judge has to make the decision if the juror stays or goes.

As for Guber are they friends? Just because he was the head of the studio at the time she made a picture for them does even mean they have met.

 

[Chris Derby]

Both sides have access to "each other's" materials and evidence, not strategies.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Defence opens today. This isn't looking very good for the prosecution. Their witnesses seem less than credible with all the discrepancies, and the implication that there may have been financial motive for a frame up is palpable.
This is far from open and shut. We'll see when it wraps on, oh gee, Tuesday. What a coincidence!

 

[Brian Perry]

Defence opens today. This isn't looking very good for the prosecution. Their witnesses seem less than credible with all the discrepancies, and the implication that there may have been financial motive for a frame up is palpable.

Jeff,

I'm beginning to think your responses are tongue-in-cheek. The judge threatened Ryder's lawyer with contempt after his line of questioning about the alleged financial angle.

On a related note, I see that the maniac who jumped onto the baseball field with his son and attacked the first base coach of the Kansas City Royals has just pleaded "not guilty" to the charges of aggravated battery. Figures. I'd love to hear his defense. Here's a guy who ran onto a field, attacked a guy in front of thousands of fans (millions on TV) and even apologized a few days ago, saying he didn't remember the incident because he was drunk. How that translates to "not guilty" is beyond me. Any leniency or mercy he might have received by sparing the taxpayers a trial should be out the window.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

I don't do criminal work, but my understanding is that while the prosecution is required to provide its materials to the defense, the defense does not have to provide its materials to the prosecution. There are sometimes exceptions, most notably if the defendant is claiming an alibi, they have to provide that alibi to the prosecution. But this sort of thing varies from state to state.

 

[Brian Perry]

The weird thing is that the judge said he expects the case to go to the jury on Monday, so he must think the defense will be short and sweet.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I'm not being tongue in cheek at all, though I;m also not really following all the details of the case either, just what CNN is reporting. However, from what I've seen so far, if I were a jury I couldn't convict her. The defence's position is entirely plausible, and the witnesses and evidence have been far from irrefutable.

I'd lay odds she'll walk, especially given the seriousness of the charges. If they were going for a misdemeanor, maybe not, but this one looks like a loss in my eyes.

 

[Ron AZ]

There are a lot more interesting cases that the media should be covering.... It all comes down to MARKETING so they can up their rates for ADVERTIZEMENTS... I can live very happily not knowing all the issues around her stealing a bra and panties.

MEDIA.... go investigate and report on something that is important and trust me you then would be doing something of real value for people you claim you are wanting to inform and educate. Ron AZ

 

[EricW]

just wondering, but hypothetically, as a juror, how damaging would it be to the accused' case if he/she did not even get on the stand in their own defense? Ryder's reportedly leaning towards not going up. to me that sounds really bad (for her).

 

[Charles J P]

I would guess in 50% or greater of criminal cases, the defendant does not testify. You usually have more to lose by going on the stand, and not taking the stand does NOT equate to an admission of guilt.

 

[Josh Lowe]

I'd love to hear his defense. Here's a guy who ran onto a field, attacked a guy in front of thousands of fans (millions on TV) and even apologized a few days ago, saying he didn't remember the incident because he was drunk. How that translates to "not guilty" is beyond me.

Didn't you know? We're a nation of victims. Nobody is responsible for their own actions. The booze made me do it! The talking dogs made me do it! Those guards pulled their guns out, put them to Winona Ryder's head and -made- her steal those clothes, didn't you know? That baseball coach cracked those two fine gentlemen over the head -with a bat-, forced the alcohol down their throats and then made them attack him!

By the way, I saw the prosecution in the Winona Ryder case got the defense's star witness to admit that he had an "axe to grind" with Saks, his former employer. His credibility is sunk. But considering what a sham the legal system is when it comes to celebrity trials, I fully expect Winona to walk. Perhaps she'll steal something pretty for herself on the way out after her acquittal.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

What, like the judge's gavel?

Glenn

 

[Marvin]

On a related note, I see that the maniac who jumped onto the baseball field with his son and attacked the first base coach of the Kansas City Royals has just pleaded "not guilty" to the charges of aggravated battery. Figures. I'd love to hear his defense.

I think he was doing research for a role in a local play, about a man that jumps onto a field and attacks a coach. I bet they'll let him plead to a lesser charge the day after the election.

 

[Craig S]

Looks like a verdict has been reached in the Ryder trial this morning. They're apparently trying to get all the parties back into the courtroom before reading it.

 

[Ron-P]

A California jury found actress Winona Ryder guilty today of theft and vandalism charges after she was accused of shoplifting more than $5,500 in merchandise from a Saks Fifth Avenue store in Beverly Hills last December. Ryder could be sentenced to as many as three years in prison on each count.

From CNN.com.
Peace Out~

 

[Patrick Sun]

Ouch!

Where's Mr. Deeds when you need him?

 

[MikeAlletto]

They haven't announced sentence yet. My bets, a hefty fine, community service, probation, and counselling. She isn't going to jail.