If Alleged Theft Was a Rehearsal, What Was Her Motivation?

A bewildered Winona Ryder kept peering over her left shoulder in the Beverly Hills courtroom, looking in the direction of relatives and her publicist as if she wanted to say something.

I don’t blame her. I was bewildered, too.

What in the world was the L.A. County district attorney’s office thinking when it kept the guy who ran Sony Pictures on the jury?

Peter Guber was the grand poo-bah at Sony Pictures Entertainment when the company produced “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” and “Age of Innocence,” both of which starred Ryder. “Dracula” raked in $82 million and “Innocence” did $32 million.

Guber also got a third Ryder picture going, and although he was gone when it was released, “Little Women” grossed $50 million.

Now look, I realize how hard it can be to find a juror in Beverly Hills who hasn’t owned a studio, produced a movie, directed a star, married one or had an affair with one. But how could the prosecutor be comfortable allowing a man who’d done more than $100-million worth of business with Ryder to sit in judgment of her?

It’d be like me going on trial for, say, attempting to strangle one or two candidates for governor of California, and having my book agent on the jury.

“I have about as much of a chance of getting on this jury as the man in the moon,” Guber himself had said in the courthouse the day before he was picked. “I only made three pictures with the lady.”

Guber sat in the jury box Tuesday scribbling in a notepad. For all we know, he could have been writing a script for Ryder’s next picture. I called the D.A.’s office to ask what gives, and it fed me the same “no comment” it’s been dishing out all week.

Maybe Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley figured this thing was a slam-dunk, no matter who was on the jury, and you’d have to say it hasn’t gone particularly well for Ryder so far. The very first witness, a Saks security man, testified that Ryder told him she was shoplifting to rehearse a movie role. Half of L.A. could give that answer.

If true, I like the spirit of it. I could stalk Jennifer Lopez, and if I happen to get arrested, I could say I was working on a column.

I suppose we should count our lucky stars Ryder doesn’t play a serial killer in this movie she’s preparing for, whatever it might be. And based on her performance in the 90-minute video of her alleged shoplifting spree at Saks, I don’t think she’s going to get the role.

Don’t get me wrong. Although the drama is plodding at times and Ryder seems to be holding something back, it surpasses her performances in both “Mr. Deeds” -- the movie’s tag line was “Don’t let the fancy clothes fool you” -- and the disposable “Autumn in New York.” Wonder how she rehearsed for those?

Ryder seems to know nothing about shoplifting, which I suppose is going to be part of her defense. Then there’s the obvious argument that a millionaire movie star doesn’t need to go around stealing duds.

First of all, there’s scarcely another shopper in the store, which is a bad time to do that kind of work. Winona pretty much has the third-floor designer boutiques to herself, with no other shoppers to serve as a distraction or human shield.

The video shows her schlepping around like a high-priced bag lady, for crying out loud, grabbing Gucci this and Yves St. Laurent that. She’s carrying more cargo than a Himalayan camel, shouldering all manner of designer clothes, hats, purses, shoes. More than once, allegedly boosted items are half falling out of a big red Saks shopping bag.

Then you’ve got the security man testifying that he found those little white electronic sensors clipped off of clothing she had her hands on in the Chanel section.

At one point, the prosecutor held up a cream-colored Mark Jacobs sweater that had been mutilated. It had a hole where the sensor would be.

Ryder allegedly was carrying a pair of orange-handled snippers when she was nabbed the moment she left the store. She shook her head ever so slightly in court when the prosecutor held those scissors up for all to see.

“I think various people had a motive to set up Winona,” her attorney Mark Geragos has claimed.

It’s going to be interesting to hear who, exactly.

Was it social outcast Edward Scissorhands, Ryder’s co-star in the movie by that name, and a man with both a motive and a weapon?

Was it a disgruntled former director or producer, or an envious salesclerk?

Maybe Geragos will call the whole thing a publicity stunt by Saks. It could make for a terrific promotion on the eve of the holiday shopping season:

WinonaWear(TM), half off.

It’s a steal!

I ran to Saks during the lunch break to see what they thought.

“I think that’s a good idea,” a salesclerk said on the third floor that had just been featured in the courtroom video.

Unfortunately, the $1,595 Gucci dress Winona had her hands on was gone, and so was most of the rest of the nearly $6,000 worth of goods in question. I think I found the Natori purse ($900), but the rest was out of season or out of style. Designer goods have a shorter shelf life than actresses.

If Ryder hadn’t gone to such a high-priced store, she might be looking at misdemeanors instead of felonies. In fact, when she turned from the defendant’s table with that look of bewilderment and silently mouthed something to supporters, I think it was this:

“I should have gone to Ross Dress for Less.”

*

Steve Lopez writes Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Reach him at steve.lopez@ latimes. com.