Back home, I used to read the paper every day. However, I was never interested in the front page, especially when I was younger. I’d jump straight to the Bulletin Board and read about all the movie stars and famous bands and what was happening in their lives. I guess it was a morbid curiosity I had with the lifestyles of the rich and famous. It seemed so foreign to me. I’d say the funny or stupid things out loud, and my mom and I snickered to ourselves because someone who makes millions of dollars in a few months got caught red-handed doing something.
Somehow, it was reassuring. It just made the superstars seem more human. But recently, the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office took celebrity sensationalism way too far. A deputy DA in the office put it best, “This is Hollywood, and the DA is putting on a show for the voters.”
Monday, Winona Ryder’s trial began. She is charged with four felony counts-second-degree burglary, grand theft, vandalism and possession of a controlled substance-related to an alleged shoplifting incident Dec. 12, 2001, at Saks Fifth Avenue in Beverly Hills.
She was indicted for allegedly stealing $4,000 to $5,000 worth of designer clothes and purses and for illegally possessing painkillers. If convicted, Ryder faces three years in prison.
From the beginning, her lawyers insisted that she was innocent. They claim that she was singled out because she is famous. Though we’ve all heard that line of defense before, it may have some merit in this case, considering the crazy tactics the prosecuting attorneys have pulled.
First, the district attorney’s office called a press conference just 24 hours after her arrest. They ignored Ryder’s lawyers’ requests to call off the conference and instead made a ridiculous production out of it. At the conference, policemen proudly announced that they had video from surveillance cameras showing Ryder cutting tags off of clothing with a pair of scissors.
Wow! That seemed like shocking, hard evidence. However, much to the media’s and DA’s dismay, when the tape was released to the public, all it showed was Ryder shopping in the store. There were no scissors; there was no incriminating evidence.
Two months later, the DA’s office still claimed that the video was incriminating evidence. Months later, at a preliminary hearing, they finally admitted that the only piece of evidence they had was a single security guard who said he saw her clipping tags. Now, “one security guard” sounds nothing like “video surveillance tape.” How could they get that confused? And beyond being a major blooper (read: lie) on their part, Ryder could be denied a fair trial.
What about that felony drug charge? When she was arrested, Ryder had two tablets. That’s right. Just two. They were Endocet, which is the generic version of the painkiller Percocet. She has a prescription for Percocet! So, she is being charged for having the drug she was prescribed, just from a different company. What is going through the head of the district attorney?
The DA has also refused to accept any plea for less than a felony charge for Ryder, which is unusual for a case of this type. Also, the DA has actually ignored Saks’ own requests to drop all charges against her.
In an article in the National Review Online, Joel Mowbray wrote that the DA’s office warned Saks that if they didn’t cooperate in the case against Ryder, their attorneys would not prosecute shoplifting cases at the Beverly Hills location any more.
Yes, Ryder has a large amount of unpaid-for merchandise. But this can hardly hold a candle to what else happens daily in Los Angeles. Give the girl a break. The DA should go find a real criminal to play with.
JanaZ Hatcher is a sophomore political science major.