Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Actress Winona Ryder Found Guilty
Aired November 07, 2002 - 08:06 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, back to some news out of the West Coast. You've probably found out that Winona Ryder was found guilty on a couple of counts yesterday and early next month she's going to find out how she will be punished for trying to steal more than $5,500 worth of merchandise from a Beverly Hills store.
As we mentioned, a jury yesterday found her guilty on two of the three counts she faced. But the prosecutor says she won't seek jail time for Ryder and in a moment we're going to hear from Sherman Pore, who was an alternate juror on that case.
First, though, we're joined from Los Angeles this morning by Ann Rundle, the assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case.
Good morning.
Welcome.
So, Prosecutor Rundle, why is it that you won't seek jail time for Winona Ryder?
ANN RUNDLE, L.A. DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: This case was never about jail time. This was a case where we had asked Ms. Ryder to take responsibility for her conduct and ultimately the jury found her responsible for her conduct. This is a first felony conviction and in most instances when someone has their first felony conviction, they face probation, community service, restitution, and that's what we're going to ask for in this case.
ZAHN: Has she shown you any remorse for what she did?
RUNDLE: I have not seen any during my time with her in court.
ZAHN: Did that surprise you?
RUNDLE: It doesn't surprise me. It's very common in criminal trials.
ZAHN: Do you understand at this point what her motive would have been for stealing all the items you outlined during the trial?
RUNDLE: Well, as I explained to the jury in my closing argument, people steal for a variety of reasons and it doesn't always have anything to do with whether or not they have the ability to pay. Just because someone doesn't have to steal, doesn't mean that they did not steal, as in this case. People steal for envy, greed, spite or just for the thrill of it, and that may have been the situation with Ms. Ryder.
ZAHN: A lot of people, as they're analyzing this trial, are wondering why it ended up in trial in the first place. Which, did you ever offer her a deal to avoid trial?
RUNDLE: Well, I won't discuss the specifics of settlement negotiations because I believe they should always remain confidential. I will say that my office felt very strongly that this was felony conduct and we wanted her to take responsibility for what she did on December 12, 2001. Certainly every defendant has the constitutional right to a jury trial. Ms. Ryder wanted a jury trial and we were happy to accommodate her.
ZAHN: Now, Ryder's supporters have now said for the first time the no jail time was mentioned at the news conference following the verdict and they're wondering why you would go through all the expense and time of a trial if you didn't even expect to recommend jail time in the first place.
RUNDLE: Well, first of all, my office is in the business of doing trials and as I said, it is up to the defendant to decide whether or not they want to resolve the case early on or go to trial. We never, at any point in time, asked for jail time. All we asked was that Ms. Ryder take responsibility for what she did. And ultimately the jury has found her responsible.
So we will be asking for the appropriate sentence for a first felony conviction, which is probation and community service and restitution.
ZAHN: Now you were able to show she committed theft and vandalized clothes with scissors, but you weren't able to show the intent that was required for a burglary charge. Why is that?
RUNDLE: Well, there is a difference between burglary and grand theft. In a charge of burglary, the jury has to make a finding of what was in her mind at the time that she entered the store. Certainly we knew that that would be a concern for the jurors because we could not tell them exactly what time she entered the store and we do know that she did make a purchase early on, at about 3:54 that afternoon.
So I was not surprised by the verdict on count one. It has absolutely no reflection on the other counts. Whether or not she was convicted of one or three, her potential sentence remains the same.
As I said, we were only asking for a felony conviction, and as it turns out, the jury gave us two felony convictions.
ZAHN: Now, district attorney, Deputy District Attorney Rundle, I know that people, many people were amused by your closing arguments, making a reference to the top 10 list. I'm just curious if you were worried before you delivered that top 10 list if it could have backfired with the jurors.
RUNDLE: Well, we had had some very amusing moments throughout the trial. The jury had been very responsive. There had been laughter throughout the trial. So certainly I felt this was a case where it was appropriate to perhaps bring some levity into the closing argument.
ZAHN: I'm going to bring Sherman Pore into our discussion now, who was an alternate juror in this case.
RUNDLE: Yes.
ZAHN: Good morning, Mr. Pore.
SHERMAN PORE, ALTERNATE JUROR: Good morning.
ZAHN: Had you been on the jury, would you have found Winona Ryder guilty?
PORE: I'm not sure.
ZAHN: And why is that?
PORE: Well, there were, I think that the prosecution presented an excellent case and she had me convinced. But I started seeing little discrepancies here and there. And I think one thing that made me start really wondering is I contemplated the Gucci dress. Here we had security people who followed this lady with cameras for an hour and a half. But in the hour and a half that they had her in the security room, they could not determine that the Gucci dress wasn't hers.
They didn't even look at it, apparently, to see if there were any rips where any tags had been taken -- any security tags had been taken off of it. That says to me big mistake. Well, if they made that big mistake, they're asking us to believe that that was the only big mistake, the only mistake they made.
ZAHN: But what about all the...
PORE: But I...
ZAHN: ... about all the other powerful pieces of evidence that were presented at trial?
PORE: OK. Some of the things that had been taken from the second floor fitting room, I question how they really, really fit into the whole puzzle. Let's assume for a moment that maybe, maybe the security people did make some mistakes in there and basically they had to do some rearranging -- and I'm not saying that this is any big conspiracy or anything else. If they made that big mistake about the Gucci dress, then that makes me wonder where else might they have made a mistake and did those mistakes in any way, manner, shape or form cause them to manufacture any of this?
We're taking them at their word that what was on the video and where they're narrating the video to us, they're telling us what it means.
ZAHN: All right, let's go back to Ms. Rundle...
PORE: Does it really mean that?
ZAHN: Well, let's go back to Ms. Rundle...
PORE: Does it really mean all that?
ZAHN: ... when she hears some of the skepticism you're displaying here this morning about how she effectively confronted that.
A final thought, Ms. Rundle?
RUNDLE: Well, I do remember Mr. Pore from the jury selection process. I do recall that he considered himself an inventor and that was a concern that I had that he certainly would be a juror who may invent defenses where there weren't any. I think had he been involved in the actual deliberation process with the other jurors, certainly this would have been something that he could have discussed and I think all 12 jurors would have come to the same unanimous decision.
ZAHN: What kind of an example, Ms. Rundle, do you think the judge will make of Winona Ryder when it comes to sentencing day?
RUNDLE: I know Judge Fox very well. I think that he has handled this case as he would any other case in his courtroom. I don't think that he's going to make a point of making an example of her. I think that he will review the facts, the evidence, the verdicts and give her the appropriate sentence, given the facts of this particular case.
ZAHN: Ms. Rundle, L.A. deputy district attorney from Los Angeles, thanks for your time this morning.
RUNDLE: Thank you. Good morning.
ZAHN: And Sherman Pore, we appreciate your perspective, as well.
PORE: Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired November 7, 2002 - 08:06 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, back to some news out of the West Coast. You've probably found out that Winona Ryder was found guilty on a couple of counts yesterday and early next month she's going to find out how she will be punished for trying to steal more than $5,500 worth of merchandise from a Beverly Hills store.
As we mentioned, a jury yesterday found her guilty on two of the three counts she faced. But the prosecutor says she won't seek jail time for Ryder and in a moment we're going to hear from Sherman Pore, who was an alternate juror on that case.
First, though, we're joined from Los Angeles this morning by Ann Rundle, the assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case.
Good morning.
Welcome.
So, Prosecutor Rundle, why is it that you won't seek jail time for Winona Ryder?
ANN RUNDLE, L.A. DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: This case was never about jail time. This was a case where we had asked Ms. Ryder to take responsibility for her conduct and ultimately the jury found her responsible for her conduct. This is a first felony conviction and in most instances when someone has their first felony conviction, they face probation, community service, restitution, and that's what we're going to ask for in this case.
ZAHN: Has she shown you any remorse for what she did?
RUNDLE: I have not seen any during my time with her in court.
ZAHN: Did that surprise you?
RUNDLE: It doesn't surprise me. It's very common in criminal trials.
ZAHN: Do you understand at this point what her motive would have been for stealing all the items you outlined during the trial?
RUNDLE: Well, as I explained to the jury in my closing argument, people steal for a variety of reasons and it doesn't always have anything to do with whether or not they have the ability to pay. Just because someone doesn't have to steal, doesn't mean that they did not steal, as in this case. People steal for envy, greed, spite or just for the thrill of it, and that may have been the situation with Ms. Ryder.
ZAHN: A lot of people, as they're analyzing this trial, are wondering why it ended up in trial in the first place. Which, did you ever offer her a deal to avoid trial?
RUNDLE: Well, I won't discuss the specifics of settlement negotiations because I believe they should always remain confidential. I will say that my office felt very strongly that this was felony conduct and we wanted her to take responsibility for what she did on December 12, 2001. Certainly every defendant has the constitutional right to a jury trial. Ms. Ryder wanted a jury trial and we were happy to accommodate her.
ZAHN: Now, Ryder's supporters have now said for the first time the no jail time was mentioned at the news conference following the verdict and they're wondering why you would go through all the expense and time of a trial if you didn't even expect to recommend jail time in the first place.
RUNDLE: Well, first of all, my office is in the business of doing trials and as I said, it is up to the defendant to decide whether or not they want to resolve the case early on or go to trial. We never, at any point in time, asked for jail time. All we asked was that Ms. Ryder take responsibility for what she did. And ultimately the jury has found her responsible.
So we will be asking for the appropriate sentence for a first felony conviction, which is probation and community service and restitution.
ZAHN: Now you were able to show she committed theft and vandalized clothes with scissors, but you weren't able to show the intent that was required for a burglary charge. Why is that?
RUNDLE: Well, there is a difference between burglary and grand theft. In a charge of burglary, the jury has to make a finding of what was in her mind at the time that she entered the store. Certainly we knew that that would be a concern for the jurors because we could not tell them exactly what time she entered the store and we do know that she did make a purchase early on, at about 3:54 that afternoon.
So I was not surprised by the verdict on count one. It has absolutely no reflection on the other counts. Whether or not she was convicted of one or three, her potential sentence remains the same.
As I said, we were only asking for a felony conviction, and as it turns out, the jury gave us two felony convictions.
ZAHN: Now, district attorney, Deputy District Attorney Rundle, I know that people, many people were amused by your closing arguments, making a reference to the top 10 list. I'm just curious if you were worried before you delivered that top 10 list if it could have backfired with the jurors.
RUNDLE: Well, we had had some very amusing moments throughout the trial. The jury had been very responsive. There had been laughter throughout the trial. So certainly I felt this was a case where it was appropriate to perhaps bring some levity into the closing argument.
ZAHN: I'm going to bring Sherman Pore into our discussion now, who was an alternate juror in this case.
RUNDLE: Yes.
ZAHN: Good morning, Mr. Pore.
SHERMAN PORE, ALTERNATE JUROR: Good morning.
ZAHN: Had you been on the jury, would you have found Winona Ryder guilty?
PORE: I'm not sure.
ZAHN: And why is that?
PORE: Well, there were, I think that the prosecution presented an excellent case and she had me convinced. But I started seeing little discrepancies here and there. And I think one thing that made me start really wondering is I contemplated the Gucci dress. Here we had security people who followed this lady with cameras for an hour and a half. But in the hour and a half that they had her in the security room, they could not determine that the Gucci dress wasn't hers.
They didn't even look at it, apparently, to see if there were any rips where any tags had been taken -- any security tags had been taken off of it. That says to me big mistake. Well, if they made that big mistake, they're asking us to believe that that was the only big mistake, the only mistake they made.
ZAHN: But what about all the...
PORE: But I...
ZAHN: ... about all the other powerful pieces of evidence that were presented at trial?
PORE: OK. Some of the things that had been taken from the second floor fitting room, I question how they really, really fit into the whole puzzle. Let's assume for a moment that maybe, maybe the security people did make some mistakes in there and basically they had to do some rearranging -- and I'm not saying that this is any big conspiracy or anything else. If they made that big mistake about the Gucci dress, then that makes me wonder where else might they have made a mistake and did those mistakes in any way, manner, shape or form cause them to manufacture any of this?
We're taking them at their word that what was on the video and where they're narrating the video to us, they're telling us what it means.
ZAHN: All right, let's go back to Ms. Rundle...
PORE: Does it really mean that?
ZAHN: Well, let's go back to Ms. Rundle...
PORE: Does it really mean all that?
ZAHN: ... when she hears some of the skepticism you're displaying here this morning about how she effectively confronted that.
A final thought, Ms. Rundle?
RUNDLE: Well, I do remember Mr. Pore from the jury selection process. I do recall that he considered himself an inventor and that was a concern that I had that he certainly would be a juror who may invent defenses where there weren't any. I think had he been involved in the actual deliberation process with the other jurors, certainly this would have been something that he could have discussed and I think all 12 jurors would have come to the same unanimous decision.
ZAHN: What kind of an example, Ms. Rundle, do you think the judge will make of Winona Ryder when it comes to sentencing day?
RUNDLE: I know Judge Fox very well. I think that he has handled this case as he would any other case in his courtroom. I don't think that he's going to make a point of making an example of her. I think that he will review the facts, the evidence, the verdicts and give her the appropriate sentence, given the facts of this particular case.
ZAHN: Ms. Rundle, L.A. deputy district attorney from Los Angeles, thanks for your time this morning.
RUNDLE: Thank you. Good morning.
ZAHN: And Sherman Pore, we appreciate your perspective, as well.
PORE: Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
