Ryder was 'filmed stealing from other stores', transcripts show

Newly-released court transcripts from the shoplifting trial of Winona Ryder have revealed that the actress was suspected of stealing from two other department stores before her arrest in Beverly Hills.

Ryder was never charged after the alleged incidents at Barneys New York and Neiman Marcus in Beverly Hills.

The actress was convicted on Wednesday of grand theft and vandalism for shoplifting more than $5,500 (£3,500) worth of merchandise from Saks Fifth Avenue last December. Ryder was found innocent of a third charge of burglary. Her sentencing has been scheduled for 6 December.

The jurors didn't hear about the alleged past incidents.

The transcripts give details of prosecution efforts during a closed hearing on 24 Octoberto introduce evidence of Ryder's alleged "prior bad acts" into her shoplifting trial.

In the transcripts, the Deputy District Attorney Ann Rundle said jurors should hear about the previous incidents before judging Ryder's behaviour at Saks Fifth Avenue. "We have videotapes of two prior instances wherein she is seen doing the identical conduct that they will see on the video in our case ... selecting items, concealing those items underneath heavy garment bags or underneath her own clothing, in and out of dressing rooms, and walking out of the store without paying for the item," she said.

She told the judge that, in one case, Ryder "was seen by security selecting a hat, wandering around the store and then walking out the door with the hat on her head without paying for it."

She said Ryder stole from Barneys on 14 May 2000 and 10 October last year, and from the Neiman Marcus store in Beverly Hills on 29 November last year. How those stores handled the incidents was not stated in the transcripts. Ryder's lawyer, Mark Geragos, said: "[She has] never been detained. She has never been arrested." He said the prosecution was trying to "throw in more garbage" because it had a weak case.

Judge Elden Foxruled against letting jurors hear of the prior acts, saying the evidence "would impair the defendant's ability to have a fair trial". (AP)