If you are a juror or a close friend or relative of a juror in the Winona Ryder jury trial, Do Not Read This. Guilt or innocence should be decided solely on evidence presented in the courtroom, not on recaps of the evidence or opinions posted on the Internet:

Yesterday was a good day for Winona Ryder's defense, particularly when Saks security guard Kenneth Evans denied that he had told anyone he was "going to nail" Winona and "get her one way or another."

Evans has been the chief prosecution witness, testifying for three days. He's been the one leading the jury through the videotape, frame by frame. During cross-examination by Ryder's lawyer Mark Geragos, he denied discussing the case with a co-worker shortly after Ryder's arrest last year.

Mark asked him if during a lunch meeting with a male colleague, "did you have a discussion in which you said 'I am going to nail her'?"

Mr Evans replied: "Absolutely not."

Mr Geragos: "Did you tell him you were going to get her one way or another?"

Mr Evans: "Absolutely not."

What that tells us is that Geragos has the colleague on his witness list and will use him during the defense case to attack the guard's credibility. Juries are usually instructed that if they find part of a witness' testimony to be false, they may choose to disregard all of that witness' testimony. Should any juror choose to disregard Evans' entire testimony, there might not be enough evidence to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt. Jury nullification--a not guilty verdict because the jury believes the prosecution is being unfair to Ryder because of her celebrity, would not even be necessary. Someone like juror Peter Guber could simply say, the guard lied about something big -- his intention to get Ryder at any cost -- and I am going to strike from my consideration all of his testimony, including what he said during his walk-through of the video tape with the jury.

We think this trial is a no lose proposition for Ryder. We doubt the judge would jail her if convicted. The prosecution refused to offer her a misdemeanor before trial. So why not go to trial? There is no downside for her. Either she will be acquitted and have no felony on her record or she will be convicted and have a felony but not go to jail --the same as if she had accepted a plea bargain.

Earlier, it emerged that Mr Evans had a personal file on Ryder, including a Polaroid photo taken of her after she was apprehended in Saks and newspaper clippings relating to the case. He didn't turn this file over to the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office as he was required to do. Why would a guard keep a private file on Ms. Ryder unless he was obsessed either with her or with "nailing her?"

It really makes us angry to think of the state of California prosecuting an actress for allegedly stealing $6,000 from a luxury store when Kenneth Lay and his ilk haven't been charged with anything and allegedly stole millions or billions from the American people.

Prosecutors are supposed to care about justice, not winning. They are usually elected. If a DA is running for office in your district Nov. 5, check them out before hand, make sure you know who you are voting for. If we lived in Beverly Hills, we'd be picketing the DA's office. Come to think of it, we're sorry we didn't pick up one of those "Free Winona" tee shirts when we were at the trial Monday.