Justice Interrupted: Winona Ryder didn’t get a fair trial.
As TV reporters and pundits rushed to cheer the triumph of "justice" in the Winona Ryder shoplifting case, one important question was barely even addressed: Did the actress receive a fair trial?
She didn't — but few people seem to care.
Maybe Ryder stole some items at Saks Fifth Avenue, and maybe she didn't. That question can only be answered in the course of a fair trial, but Wednesday's guilty verdict — which Ryder will be appealing — was not that.
Forty-nine percent of Los Angeles County residents polled on the eve of the trial by Kellyanne Conway believed there was a security tape showing Ryder clipping off sensor tags. There wasn't — but only 16 percent knew that. Why did nearly half of Angelinos believe Ryder was caught on tape if she wasn't? Because the DA's office said so.
On February 1 — almost two months after Ryder's December 12, 2001, arrest — the DA's office issued a press release trumpeting the fact that Ryder was caught red-handed on the security footage. And even though she wasn't, the lie took root.
The DA's office tantalized the media with the assertion that Ryder had shoplifted before — even that she had a shoplifting "habit." But, as first reported by NRO, those alleged instances were both based on the accounts of a single witness, in each case alleging that Ryder may have taken or attempted to take a single item of clothing. Neither "prior bad act" was even close to admissible, but once the story was out, the damage was done. The notion that Ryder was a serial shoplifter contributed to the widespread perception that she was guilty.
And by slapping her with felony drug possession — for two individual pills of a generic version (endocet) of a drug for which she had a prescription (Percocet) — the DA's office made it even easier for the media to caricature the movie star.
Beyond the tactics employed by the DA's office, assorted characters in the media have taken to spreading gossip and innuendo to sully Ryder's character and imply that she's guilty. But regardless of what reputation she may or may not have, none of that is relevant — or admissible — in a fair trial.
Perhaps the DA's office thought it could get a slam-dunk on a shoplifting case, making Ryder the perfect player in a well-orchestrated political campaign.
For whatever reason, the L.A. District Attorney's office decided to get tough — on shoplifting, or more specifically, on this shoplifter. No other shoplifting case has ever gotten this kind of treatment, and the DA stubbornly refused to allow Ryder — who had no criminal record of any kind — to plea-bargain down to a misdemeanor.
Even people with no sympathy for Ryder admit that the actress was the victim of a zealous prosecution because the DA's office could not afford yet another high-profile loss. DA Steve Cooley trounced his predecessor Gil Garcetti two years ago in large part because of Garcetti's legendary ineptitude in prosecuting celebrity cases.
Not only is Ryder getting harsher treatment than other alleged shoplifters, but she is also faring much worse than other celebrities. Despite his political posturing, the DA's office has been soft on other celebrities — including one actress who killed a kid.
While driving on June 13, 2001, former Beverly Hills, 90210 actress Rebecca Gayheart hit nine-year-old Jorge Cruz — killing the young boy. Her sentence? A plea bargain to a misdemeanor, which netted her three years of probation, a one-year license suspension, 750 hours of community service, and a $2,800 fine.
Even if Gayheart's case was handled appropriately, other factors still make the pursuit of Ryder seem anomalous.
For instance, the lead deputy DA on Ryder's case made a controversial decision two years ago to not prosecute a wealthy and politically connected 19-year-old. On September 11, 1999, a teenager was shot multiple times at the home of Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers — and fund-raiser for then-district attorney Garcetti. Sterling's son, Scott, pumped multiple buckshot bullets into his lifelong friend, Philip Scheid.
Police were adamant that charges be filed — but Rundle disagreed. According to the Los Angeles Times, detectives wrote two memos to Rundle, the lead prosecutor assigned to the case, in which they strongly advocated a full-fledged prosecution: "There is overwhelming justification for filing a criminal case against Scott Sterling." Sterling's self-defense claims were labeled "preposterous," and, detectives added, "No rational person would entertain the possibility of his story being true."
Even though physical evidence showed that Scheid had been shot from behind — making it unlikely the shooting was done in self-defense — Rundle declined to push forward. On September 15, 2000, more than a year after the non-fatal shooting, Rundle wrote a confidential memo recommending that charges not be filed. Ryder got no such helping hand from Rundle.
Media types were fond of noting yesterday that Ryder would not be a convicted felon today if she had not stolen items from Saks. Perhaps, though, she would have avoided her troubles altogether if she had only been smart enough to commit a more serious crime, like other celebrities before her.
nationalreview.com
— Joel Mowbray is an NRO contributor and a Townhall.com columnist. |
