CNN Europe CNN Asia
On CNN TV Transcripts Headline News CNN International About CNN.com Preferences
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SERVICES
 
 
 
SEARCH
Web CNN.com
powered by Yahoo!
TRANSCRIPTS
Return to Transcripts main page

CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL

Sentencing Hearing of Winona Ryder

Aired December 6, 2002 - 12:28   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: As we've been telling the audience all day, we've been following the procedures in this courtroom in Beverly Hills, California. Winona Ryder about to be sentenced.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shoplifting is a serious crime, according to Dr. Richard Harlinger (ph), a criminologist at the University of Florida who has conducted for the past 10 years the National Retail Security Survey. Shoplifting last year cost the retail industry almost $10 billion. That is over $25 million in losses every day. According to Dr. Harlinger's (ph) research, an average family of four will spend more than $440 this year in higher prices because of inventory theft.

At Saks Fifth Avenue, we estimate that last year alone, we lost over $7 million to shoplifters. That $7 million, your honor, could have gone to help fund pension benefits for our employees, the opening of new stores, for the creation of new jobs. Instead, it went to criminals.

Shoplifting is not a minor offense, nor is it a victimless crime. We are all its victims, those who work in retail -- and one in five Americans does -- those who invest in retail companies or in companies that do business with retailers, and most directly, those who shop and who end up paying higher prices to compensate for shoplifting losses. When shoplifters steal from stores, they are picking the pockets of the American people.

With respect to this case, Saks Fifth Avenue treated the defendant no differently than any other shoplifter would have been treated under the same circumstances.

The defendant was observed concealing merchandise in a hat and in bags that she brought into the store. The defendant was observed cutting around the sensor tags on certain items with a pair of scissors that she brought into the store.

When the defendant left the store without paying for the concealed and damaged merchandise, she was stopped outside and asked to come to the security office where the standard paperwork was filled out, including a confession voluntarily signed by the defendant.

Saks Fifth Avenue then called the police. The defendant was then turned over to their custody. And from that point forward, Saks Fifth Avenue proceeded to meet its legal obligations, and we did so quietly. Saks Fifth Avenue responded to every request for production of documents and other information from the police department, the district attorney's office, and from defendant's counsel. At the same time, we repeatedly turned down numerous requests for comment about the case from every media organization.

The defendant and her agents behaved otherwise. On December 13, the first day following her arrest, defendant's counsel announced to the media that there had clearly been a misunderstanding, because, he claimed, the defendant had receipts for all of the items she took from the store. Defendant's counsel continued to make that claim in the press for months, until this court finally ordered him to produce the alleged receipts. There were none. But Saks Fifth Avenue chose not to respond to those misstatements out of respect for the integrity of the judicial process.

There were a number of other public actions engaged in by the defendant and her counsel prior to trial. The defendant, wearing a "Free Winona" T-shirt, appeared on the cover of "W" magazine, a fashion publication well-known to Saks' customers, and she appeared as the host of "Saturday Night Live" and as a presenter on the MTV Awards, in both cases making light of the pending criminal charges.

At around the same time, the defendant's counsel continued to make false and inflammatory statements intended for public consumption, including those he made after the preliminary hearing in June on the steps of this courthouse. He said, I quote, "I have got evidence Saks targeted her." He also said that the testimony of Saks' security guards was, quote, "as close to full-blown perjury as I've seen in a courtroom."

Again, out of respect for the judicial process, Saks Fifth Avenue did not respond to these falsehoods. And in fact, we continued to refrain from making any statement about this case outside of the courtroom.

Our silence has come at a price, however. Throughout the course of this case, Saks Fifth Avenue has received hundreds of calls and e- mails from customers and other members of the public, many of whom have expressed their concern over the manner in which they perceived Saks was treating the defendant.

The price of the company's silence also has been paid for by Saks's employees, who in addition to being publicly branded as liars and perjurers by defendant's counsel, have had their lives scrutinized by the defendant's team of private investigators. They have been followed, photographed, had their former boyfriends, girlfriends, roommates, employers and colleagues all tracked down. Your honor, they have even had their private financial transactions questioned in court without any good faith basis for believing that they were even remotely related to this case. It is hardly fair that honest, hard working people who were just doing their jobs, Ken Evans (ph), Colleen Ramey (ph), Mark Bolding (ph), Ernie Emaya (ph), Gus Resindez (ph), Shirley Warren (ph) and Sophia Suriongya (ph) should be subjected to such intense and malicious scrutiny merely because they had the misfortune of apprehending a movie star thief.

To assist the judicial process, Saks Fifth Avenue did more than merely refrain from making public comments outside of court. We communicated often with the district attorney's office and we received assurances that the defendant was charged with crimes that were called for by the evidence. and that the defendant was not being treated more severely because of her celebrity. We also kept abreast of a possible plea agreement, and Saks would have supported any arrangement that was acceptable to the people and the defendant.

To many people in the public, this appeared to be a case of Saks Fifth Avenue against Winona Ryder. The court knows that is not true. This is a criminal matter brought by the state to prosecute crimes against victims: Saks Fifth Avenue, its employees and honest customers.

Unfortunately, the defendant to date has refused to accept any responsibility for her actions. Instead, she has used every resource at her disposal, in particular her unique access to the media to blame the victim.

Your Honor, I'd like to conclude by reading to the court an e- mail message that Saks Fifth Avenue received before the verdict. And I quote -- "I hope you're standing behind your security staff 100 percent in regards to this Winona Ryder trial. Stealing is so wrong, and anyone caught doing it should be punished. I have four children who all know this is a crime and completely understand that stores will prosecute to the full extent of the law, as their signs clearly state. I commend your staff for attempting to treat all customers equally regardless of their celebrity. Let's hope this jury feels the same way. The message this will be sending, especially to impressionable teenagers, if she is acquitted of this theft, is disturbing. I certainly don't want my children to think it's not against the law to shoplift from Saks."

Thank you, Your Honor.

ELDEN FOX, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE: Thank you.

Anyone else? OK. Ms. Rundle, are there any statements you wanted made in regard to sentencing at this point?

ANN RUNDLE, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I have filed a written sentencing recommendation with the court. In addition, it has been brought to my attention that pursuant to vehicle code section 13202.6, upon a conviction for a violation of penal protection (ph) 594, the court shall suspend the defendant's driving privileges for one year, that it is a mandatory requirement the defendant -- the court require the defendant to surrender her driver's license and that should the defendant seek to have her license reinstated earlier than a year, she would be required to do approximately one hour of community service for every day left of the suspension. So we are asking that the court impose that condition in addition to the others that we requested in our sentencing recommendation.

The most important thing that I would say to this court is the same thing that I have been saying from the very first day, that this defendant should be treated no differently than any other defendant before this court. So we are asking the court to impose all of the standard terms and conditions of probation that we laid out in our sentencing recommendation.

FOX: Thank you. Mr. Geragos, my understanding you have a statement from --

MARK GERAGOS, RYDER'S ATTORNEY: I did have Mr. Clapp's (ph), but I don't think he's arrived yet. So, if that's the case, then I'll just, if I could, I'd like to address the court.

FOX: You may.

GERAGOS: You know, it's interesting that Ms. Rundle said from the beginning all she's asked is that this case be treated like anybody else's and Mr. Metzner says since the beginning all they've wanted is to see that she's treated like anyone else. It's clear to me, at least in 20 years of practice, that this case has been handled unlike any I've ever seen, and unlike any of my colleagues have ever seen.

For Mr. Metzner to get up here and read that statement in which he says Saks just stood idly by and paid an enormous price, when, surprising even their analysts this last quarter, they turned a profit for the first time in I don't know how many straight quarters, and received I don't know how much publicity off of the prosecution of this case. And at every point that I talked to Mr. Metzner's superiors, at every single point, wanted to drop this case and did not want to pursue this case.

For him to come in now and read this statement because he's got a camera here and say that we cooperated, we were just trying to get the criminal justice system to do whatever it was they wanted to do, is frankly outrageous given the fact that I know in my multiple conversations with their general counsel that they wanted nothing to do with the prosecution of this case.

The fact of the matter was, however, the press conference that he talked about in which I spoke out in this case came on the heels of the Beverly Hills Police Department orchestrating a press conference less than 12 hours after the arrest in this case, in which they called in the entire assembled media on the front steps of the Beverly Hills Police Department. They made announcements that were absolutely, unequivocally false, said that there were -- and this court heard it from Lieutenant Gilmont (ph). They said that there was -- that she was on tape cutting off tags. That was beamed out globally, all over the world, and for him to now complain that somehow I came out and tried to respond and said that is not something that we think happened, is probably the height of hutzpah.

The idea that -- then it's reiterated by the D.A.'s office in a press conference, as this court knows, because it was an exhibit in this court, on February 1 when they announced the charges, is frankly also, I think, outrageous.

The same misinformation, the same false statements were put out there then. The court knows from the motion to recuse that I filed under seal, that at every point in this case, my client and I tried to and attempted to resolve this case. There was never a point -- within two days of the arrest, I was in this D.A.'s office -- or on the phone with the filing deputy in this matter trying to settle this case.

Mr. Lynch, who is sitting here in this courtroom today, who is Miss Rundle's supervisor, I went into his office on countless occasions trying to settle this case. At every point during that attempt, I was met with things that were not only -- conditions that were not only unconstitutional on their face as the court well knows from the motion to recuse, they wanted a dog and pony show at every single point. They wanted her to come in on scheduled appearances.

They wanted her to make statements or extort, if you will, statements prior to any kind of plea negotiations, and at all times were told that they just couldn't do anything beside -- or they had to have some kind of a felony plea and a felony conviction at all times.

Well, they got their felony conviction. They got their felony conviction after they have done everything possible to try to destroy this woman. They have leaked out, after this court ruled that it should not be admissible, the prior statements and the prior acts evidence.

Within days of the court saying that it wasn't going to be admissible, every single detail of that was released to the press after the court file was sealed, as well.

All of that information, as the court knows, was ruled inadmissible because it was more prejudicial than probative. There was never an arrest, there was never a detention. It was something that was inadmissible on its face.

There was -- once again, here as we come into the home stretch, if you will, of this one-year debacle, there is the -- now the -- after the drug charges have been dropped, now we've got a string site (ph), if you will, of a list of drugs. There's no reason for that to have been brought up at this point, other than to just further the damage to Miss Ryder. They know -- the prosecution knows and has known all along the unique factors that go into this case.

I've spent countless time and effort explaining that to them. The fact of the matter is that she's been treated, in my opinion, anything but like anybody else. The fact of the matter is, is that I know it's the court's intention to impose formal probation. Well, interestingly enough, the probation department, which had her probation report under lock and key -- or they had to file a burglary report with Santa Monica P.D. because the probation officers -- apparently somebody got in there, and apparently stole the report and committed a burglary. Ironically enough in a case where she was acquitted of a commercial burglary.

So the idea that somehow we're going to treat this like anyone else or that this case is being treated like anyone else, I think, is virtually laughable. The fact of the matter is -- the fact of the matter is, judge, that at all times from day one, we tried to resolve this. The fact of the matter is that we were never allowed, I think, to fairly resolve it in a timely fashion initially, for whoever's fault that was, and I am not laying blame there.

The fact of the matter is that when the D.A. comes out and says that they are going to treat her like anybody else, she hasn't been treated like anybody else. The fact of the matter is, that as much as this court has valiantly tried to protect her right to a fair trial and to protect her rights in this case, that we've slammed right against a fire storm, if you will, at every single point, and the court has tried to protect her physically, yet she gets jostled by the media as she comes in here and an arm gets broken.

The court has tried to protect her right to a fair trial through the sealing of various evidence. That evidence gets leaked.

The court has tried to protect her rights under the probation officers' reports. I have asked, specifically, and I would like to address that with the court, that portions of that report be stricken, that the report be sealed, that I believe she's got Article I, Section 1 privacy here. I understand the victim impact statement. I understand and we accept the jury verdict in this case.

I'm never going to second-guess a jury from making a decision based upon whatever evidence is presented to them, and whatever the Zeitgeist is around them at the time when they make decision.

The fact of the matter is, however, that you have to, at a certain point, say that this woman deserved some modicum, some shred, if you will, of privacy, and I'd ask that at the end of this process, which is now almost one year, that she be allowed to go forward with some degree of dignity and privacy. She's been convicted. I think I put in the memo, I've got a check and I'm willing to pay the restitution when we can finally determine what the restitution amount is.

I'd ask that the property be returned to the defense since we're making the restitution. It is marked as exhibits, and I'd object to it being released anywhere else. I'd ask also, and I submitted as an attachment to the memorandum in opposition to the probation report, again (ph) for sentencing options, that she be allowed to do community service, that the court not impose jail time.

I specifically detailed the amount of community service that she's done since the verdict. She's done a -- she has worked with doing grunt level, if you will, community service, nothing -- I mean, she wasn't out hosting cocktail parties or anything else, she was doing data entry for Beyond Missing in the Klaas Kids Foundation. Somebody -- and I indicated this also in the previous report, this is a woman who, for the last ten years, besides her very public role, has very privately leveraged her celebrity, if you will, to do a lot of good. The -- I had hoped that Marc Klaas was here, but his letter is attached, and he talked about and specifically talks about how, without any attention being drawn to herself, she used whatever she could, both her financial resources and her ability to garner media attention in a quest to seek justice for Polly Klaas.

You can sit over here, and Ken Metzner can point his finger at her and he can call her a thief, but when you weigh on the scales of justice the things that she has done in her life, whether it's shoplifting from a place that charges $200 for bows, or whether it's somebody who took a million dollars and posted it as a reward for the return of an 11-year-old girl who was kidnapped out of her bed and then tragically murdered and was supportive of the family who she didn't know, but the only connection is because they lived in some proximity to her, the idea that they're going to come in here and read that statement and try to tar and feather her as some kind of a modern day Ma Barker is frankly, I think, revolting.

This is a woman who, beyond all of her involvement with Klaas Kids and Marc Klaas and the Klaas family has spent years as a member of the board of the American Indian College Fund. She spent years going to reservations to see that Indians get educational opportunities. She has contributed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of causes that, frankly, nobody else or most people turn their back on.

I also detailed where she's -- within the last two years, has single-handedly produced, financed and narrated a documentary on the child sex slave trade in India called "Watermelon Fields."

All of these things are done by this person that supposedly is being called a thief and being accused of all these heinous acts of going onto "Saturday Night Live" and wearing a shirt that apparently Saks customers might see, saying "Free Winona," which my impression, at least, was that it was just as much mocking herself as anybody else, and that Saks was not involved in any of that. The fact of the matter is that she had, she had a pain management problem.

It's documented that she had injuries. She addressed that pain management problem; she is still addressing that problem.

She has got the document presented to the court, a letter from the doctor, and the doctor is present in the courtroom who she's been seeing and who says that her prognosis is fantastic, and that she has done extremely well. The idea of portraying her as some kind of a sick, sick individual and denigrating her and humiliating her and stripping her of any kind of dignity or privacy, frankly, I find offensive.

I know that I'm supposed to be in here, I know that all the smart money and all the smart lawyers will tell you that I should be in here, and I should be embracing this in a confession avoidance.

But frankly, I find that extremely, extremely hard to do. I don't think, at any point, and I think the court rules say the same thing, that you're supposed to judge somebody by one act.

The court rules say you're supposed to judge somebody by the entirety of who they are as a person, and the entirety of the Winona Ryder that I know and that I have known for one year, and the entirety of the Winona Ryder that Marc Klaas has told me about for 10 years, that the people from the American Indian reservations have told me about, the people who sit in this courtroom in support of her tell me about, frankly, I can't imagine anything more compelling than what I've seen and what I've heard. This is one of the classiest women I've ever met. This is a woman who maybe had some aberrant behavior, but frankly, the idea now of branding her -- and she's going to carry with her the scarlet letter of "S," of shoplifter, wherever she goes. There isn't a single story that gets written about her at any point, there is not a single TV documentary that's done, there is not anything that isn't going to classify her and trail with her for the rest of her life this single incident that happened on December 12.

And there is going to be speculation about this, that and the other. But this woman, I think, as all of us, I don't think there's anybody in this room that wants their medicine cabinet opened up and displayed across the world, I don't think there's anybody in this room that feels that a property crime that she was convicted of should somehow trump all the good work that she's done in her life.

I just think that, frankly, there's something completely out of whack about all that. I understand what the court wants to do this case, and I understand what the court is going to do, and I think that it's -- I think that it's appropriate. I would only ask that in fashioning the sentence, and I've suggested a number of alternatives in the sentencing memorandum, that the court keep in mind that if you -- at least in the federal court, they have sentencing guidelines that call for aberrant behavior and there is downward departures based upon that.

The similarities in the California rules of court are not quite as articulated the same, but the court obviously has an extreme ability and discretion to do and fashion community service that's meaningful.

I'd ask the court to do that. I would ask the court also to fashion the community service that in some way, and I'm sure, obviously, I know that the court has attempted to do this, in some way she's able to do it without endangering herself physically, and I'd ask the court allow her, through whatever from a probationary grant that you give, the ability to continue to do work and do good things which she's done for the last ten years.

The -- and along the lines, and lastly I'll just submit it -- lastly, the idea that somehow what Mr. Metzner suggests here, that Saks Fifth Avenue, the massive wrong that's been committed and somehow that it has benefited Miss Ryder, I am hard pressed to put -- and I know the court is hard pressed to put -- to understand in any intelligible way how this has benefited -- how any of this has benefited Miss Ryder, and based upon all of that, I would ask the court to impose conditions that are manageable of probation, and conditions that will allow her to work and conditions that reflect that for whatever happened on December 12 that the jury found her guilty of, that this is a woman who has got ten years of work, and has done an awful, awful lot of good in her life, and that one day of bad should certainly not trump over a decade of what I consider to be exemplary work -- I submit it (ph).

RUNDLE: May I respond to a couple of things, your honor?

FOX: You may, but before you do, does your client want to make any statement to the court?

GERAGOS: No, your honor.

FOX: OK. Ms. Rundle.

RUNDLE: Yes. Just to respond to some of the things I heard from Mr. Geragos. First of all, with respect to privacy, convicted felons give up their privacy rights, whether they go to prison, they go to county jail or they are placed on probation, a routine thing that is done in this court, you give up your privacy rights. You are imposed search and seizure conditions -- reporting to a probation officer, et cetera.

The fact that Mr. Geragos believes that because Miss Ryder is a celebrity that she should be treated differently than any other convicted felon is inappropriate and offensive. What else is offensive to me is for somebody to trot out the body of a dead child and in some way say because she supported...

(CROSSTALK)

GERAGOS: She hasn't listened to anything for a year. She has only been on this case for four months.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... stick to the issues in this matter. You've been in this court long enough to know what things are going to be important to the court in terms of sentencing and what things aren't.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I'll say this, your honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Whatever she has done in the past, she is responsible for her actions on December 12, 2001. The rules of court say the court is to look at punishment for the defendant, deterrence to the defendant, and sending a message to the community that there are consequences for your actions.

Allowing the defendant to go out and set up her own community service programs serves none of those three factors that the court is to consider in imposing probation. We're asking that the court impose the same standards and conditions of probation to any other convicted felon before this same court.

With respect to our inclusion in our sentencing recommendation of the narcotics found in her purse -- in any other case, when we're evaluating conduct of the defendant, we look to outside circumstances that may be influencing that.

The defendant did not have one or two items in her purse. She had what has been represented to me by a narcotics detective more pain medication in her purse than would be given someone with a terminal disease.

That is something that concerns the District Attorney's Office, that is something that I think should concern the court, and that is why we are asking that she be evaluated by the Probation Department to determine whether or not drug and psychiatric conditions are appropriate, and that's what we're asking the court to impose.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In this matter, the court will make certain observations concerning the defendant, and also the sentencing in this matter.

The court does find that the factual findings of the jury in this case, as represented in the verdicts, certainly are reflective of what the evidence is, and to the extent that it has any impact or effect in terms of the court's sentence in this matter, I will tell Miss Ryder that I am in full accord with the jury's verdicts in this case, and I certainly recognize, based on the counsel's comments and hearing from the district attorney and my participation in the case over a year, that generally law-abiding people do commit criminal acts on occasion, explanations aside.

And that when these people do that, they generally learn from that experience. In viewing the probation report, I note that Miss Ryder has no prior criminal conviction, and/or arrest, nor any history, up until December 12 of 2001, and I will tell Miss Ryder that it is not my intention in this matter to make an example of you. That is not going to be the purpose of this court's sentence.

But it is my intention to impose what I believe to be appropriate punitive measures that, in essence, will reflect the conduct which was the subject matter of this trial.

In other words, I'm going to hold you accountable for what happened on December 12 of 2001. I don't intend to treat you any more harshly or any more leniently than I would any other defendant that was convicted for these crimes, any different than anyone else that would come before this court.

Miss Ryder, your actions on December 12, 2001 have been of some concern to the court, and have raised many questions in my mind, as I am sure many, many other people who have viewed this particular matter from its inception to its conclusion, and as I think Mr. Geragos has pointed out, and in my understanding in reading probation reports and hearing from many people that have spoken on your behalf, you have disappointed many people who have been entertained and inspired by your talent and also acts of humanity over many, many years.

I will tell you from a personal standpoint, that I have a 16- year-old son named Ryan, who asked me several weeks ago, to the effect of, Why would Winona Ryder steal from Saks Fifth Avenue when she certainly has enough money to pay for anything that she wanted to buy? Well, I have my own impressions, probably many other people have impressions, to explain why you acted the way you did on that day.

But I think for purposes of these proceedings today, Ms. Ryder, you're the only person that's going to be able to answer that particular question. And you're probably the only person that is going to be able to answer my son's question as to why. But I think more importantly today, there is going to be a need on your part to confront certain issues that may be the root cause of what I deem to be aberrant behavior, as described by your counsel and also by the district attorney and heard by this jury over the course of approximately one week.

What is of concern to me in this matter is the fact that you have been unable or maybe more appropriately described you have refused to accept personal responsibility for what happened on December 12. And I will tell you that although contriteness is not a requirement of probation, it is certainly something that is a necessary component to the successful completion.

I am going to impose various conditions on you, and responsibilities, in a probationary sentence that I intend to impose. And I will tell you, Ms. Ryder, that you will be required to strictly comply with these conditions in order to successfully complete your probation. Your motivation, which has been described by your counsel, as of today's date, and your continued motivation to effect the necessary personal changes in your life, will, in large part, determine whether you will be successful in the completion of this probationary sentence.

I think on December 12 of 2001 you euphemistically reached what would be termed a crossroads in your life. Your decisions and conduct from then and from today's date, in large part, are going to define your public reputation and image and possibly your future freedom. And to the extent that I've made these comments, I hope you take them to heart. I have the impressions from my discussions with counsel that you have. But I will tell you that a sentence fashioned today will ensure that if you steal again, you will go to jail. Do you understand that?

RYDER: Yes. I do.

FOX: OK. In this matter, the court intends to impose sentence as follows: The court intends to use count two as a base sentence in this matter. That is the conviction for grand theft. OK, Ms. Ryder, I need you to pay attention because I need you to understand the --

GERAGOS: Could I have one moment, Your Honor?

FOX: Go ahead.

GERAGOS: Thank you, Your Honor. We'll pay attention. If you're going to -- I didn't address one other issue which was the late- breaking vandalism driver's license issue. I believe if the court uses count two and stays its position to sentence on count three, that that solves that problem.

FOX: Thank you for your direction. As to count two, as to the grand theft, felony imposition of sentence is going to be suspended. Ms. Ryder will be placed on 36 months of supervised probation, under the following terms and conditions -- she is sentenced to one day in the county jail. She will receive credit for the one day she has already served. What that means, Ms. Ryder, is that a future petty theft conviction as a result of this can result in felony prosecution and felony sentence.

In addition, as a condition of probation, you will be ordered to pay a fine to the county and state of California in the amount of $1,000, plus the penalty assessment, the total fine and assessment in this matter will be $2,700. That is to be paid to the clerk of the court on or before January 31 of 2003. The court will also order a restitution fine of $1,000, which is payable to the clerk of the court on or before January 31 of 2003.

You will be ordered to make restitution to the named victim, that is Saks Fifth Avenue. The amount of restitution as I understand it is $6,355.40. Is that correct?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If that's the amount the court is --

FOX: That's the amount the court is ordering, unless there's going to be a request for some formal hearing in regard to that issue. We've heard the amounts described. The only issue has to do with a dress, and the court does intend to impose restitution as to that to that dress.

GERAGOS (?): I believe that's included in the 6,355.

FOX: It is. It is included.

GERAGOS (?): The only question I have, is if it goes through the probation department, then there's a cost --

FOX: I am not ordering it through probation. I'm ordering it to be paid on or before January 31, 2003. That can be paid directly to a representative of Saks Fifth Avenue.

GERAGOS (?):That's fine.

FOX: In addition, as a condition of probation, I am ordering 480 hours of community service. That community service is directed to be done specifically through the Volunteer Service Center. It will be supervised by Ms. Gloria Boone. And the community service is assessed and divided as follows. Ms. Ryder will be ordered to perform and complete 240 hours of community service, at the City of Hope, located in Duarte (ph). She will be ordered also to perform and complete 120 hours of community service at the Foundation for the Junior Blind. And she will be ordered to complete an additional 120 hours of community service at the foundation identified as caring for babies with AIDS. And that community service is going to be completed on or before April 7 of 2003. And that is a date for completion.

GERAGOS (?): You set it up as a progress report?

FOX: It is going to be a progress report date, also.

In addition, Ms. Ryder, in this matter is ordered to participate in a plan and/or program, approved by this court, for drug counseling and psychological counseling. She's further ordered in this matter to seek and maintain training, schooling and employment as directed by probation.

She will also be subject to search and seizure conditions at any time of the day or night, by any peace officer and/or probation officer, with or without a warrant, with or without probable cause. In addition, she is to keep probation advised of a current residence, employment information, and telephone numbers. The court will, with approval, allow Ms. Ryder to leave the county and state of California for purposes of employment and travel, with prior notification.

In addition, she will be ordered to use only her true name, date of birth and address, and she is not to give any false information to any peace officer and/or probation officer at any time.

She is ordered not to own, use, possess, buy or sell any narcotics, dangerous restricted drugs or associated paraphernalia, except with a valid prescription. She is to stay away from places where users, buyers or sellers congregate. She is further ordered not to associate with persons known by her to be narcotic drug users or sellers, except in authorized drug counseling programs.

She's further ordered to obey all laws, orders of this court and the rules and regulations of the probation department. She will be instructed to report to the probation department no later than Tuesday of next week. Supervision will be handled through the Santa Monica office. This matter will be calendared for a progress report to verify compliance with the terms and conditions, including the completion of the community service as ordered by this court, for the date of April 7, 2003.

As to count three, the court does intend to impose a sentence identical to that which was imposed in count two, pursuant to penal code section 654. The court is going to order that sentence stayed, that stay to become permanent upon successful completion of the sentence as to count two.

Ms. Ryder, in this matter, state law does require that I advise you that you do have a right to file a notice of appeal in regard to this matter. That notice of appeal must be filed in writing. It must be filed within 60 days of today's date. That notice of appeal will specify as to whether you're appealing from the judgment and/or sentence of this court. Mr. Geragos I'm sure will explain the circumstances as to how that is done. That notice of appeal must be filed within the specified time period, or you could be prevented from pursuing an appeal at any later point in time, if you would choose to do so.

Do you have any questions about the terms and conditions? OK. Do you accept them?

RYDER: Yes.

FOX: OK, that will be the court's order in this matter.

GERAGOS (?): We did not address the issue of the probation.

FOX: OK. What I will do is handle that at this point. I do want to indicate that Ms. Ryder will get a referral form for the community service agency. And I will advise counsel that Ms. Boone at the Volunteer Service Center has personally discussed the issue of the community service, with each of the three agencies involved and that I have been assured that she will personally involve herself with the assignment. And also the agencies themselves have assured that Ms. Ryder may perform her community service without interference from any outside media in regard to her participation in the program.

OK, a second issue that I will address at this point, has to do with the probation report, referred to, pursuant to 12-03.7 from March 11 of 2002. In this matter, the court is aware of the provisions of penal code section 12-03-05, which provides that upon sentence and judgment in this matter, that the probation report becomes a public record for a period of 60 days from today's date. And it's my understanding and the court has done some redactions on its own, that, Mr. Geragos, there's some additional requests that you have in regard to the contents of that report before it would become public information.

GERAGOS: We request that it would not become public information.

FOX: OK, well, I'll hear from counsel in regard to all of the aforementioned.

GERAGOS: On page four of the sentencing memo, a list of seven specific areas that I believe, under the California rules of court, to mandate those pages and line numbers be redacted.

FOX: OK. I believe the court has at least addressed one of your requests, which is contained on page 21, starting at line 18 to 22, at line 13. You're also requesting as to the balance of these particular areas that the court do redact the contents of the probation report?

GERAGOS: Yes, Your Honor. And I've listed specifically the lines and the rules of the court that I think appropriately address those.

FOX: OK. In addition, you have a further request in regard to the entirety of the report itself.

GERAGOS: The further request is that the court keep the matter -- deem the matter to be confidential, both under article one and section one of the California Constitution and the appropriate findings be made under the California rules of court to keep it as a confidential matter.

FOX: OK, Ms. Rundle, does your office have any position in regard to the issue as to the public dissemination of this briefing report?

RUNDLE: Yes, Your Honor. I agree with the court that pursuant to Title 325, this should become a public record. I don't believe there's any justification for any extraordinary measures taken on Ms. Ryder's behalf. And we would oppose the court conducting such extraordinary measures. With respect to the other matter cited by counsel, I've looked at the case of People v. Govara (ph), which indicates the court and the probation department may consider any information in this transaction related to the defendant's conduct, we believe this information is transactionally related and should remain in the probation report.

FOX: OK, just so I'm clear in terms of your position, because I'm certain that once I do make the findings, that there may be a request and/or writ in regard to other issues. You object to the court's redaction at page 21 at line 18 and page 22 through line 13?

RUNDLE: Line 18 through where, Your Honor?

FOX: 18 through 20 -- excuse me, on page 21, at lines 18 through 23, going to page 22, to line 13.

RUNDLE: Yes, we're objecting to that.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.

© 2004 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
external link
All external sites will open in a new browser.
CNN.com does not endorse external sites.