Summer 2003 – Issue 66 - Stanford Lawyer - Stanford University

BRIEl- ~ 11STANFORDLAWYERGOLDILOCKS WALKSGirl freed despite eating porridge and using beds.The following article b), Kim Va appeared i17 the San Jose iVIercury ews 017 H'ida)', April 25, 2003.OLD I L 0 C K S \I'AS F R E E to getlost in the woods again after ajury acquitted her of burglarycharges Thursday, apparentlybuying into the defense'sargument that no child wouldbreak into a house just to eat MamaBear's awful porridge.It was a bitter defeat for the government-StanfordLaw School DeanKathleen M. Sullivan, who deliveredthe prosecution's closing argument,complained of "jury nullification."Nonetheless, it was also a good lessonfor the children participating in TakeYour Daughters and Sons to Work Day.Like many businesses, Stanfordinvited its employees to take theirchildren to work Thursday, trying toinspire the children to think aboutcareers. Instead of just having approximately300 kids tag along with theirparents, the University developedhands-on workshops on everythingfrom a Junior Iron Chef competitionto how to coach athletics.The law workshop offered aglimpse into the high-profile world ofcelebrity trials, complete with scandal,rumors of movie deals, and a glamoroussuspect. Reporters (cnildren shadowingStanford News Service reporterBarbara Palmer) sat in the front row,scribbling in small notebooks.The case of Goldilocks and thethree bears has already spawned severalbooks. Goldilocks, a small girl withmany ringlets, was lost in the woodswhen she happened upon a house. Shewent inside and sampled the bowls ofporridge that were set out, sat in variouschairs, and tried out the bedsbefore falling asleep in the smallestone. It was there she was discovered bythe bears, who returned home after awalk in the woods.Annamaria Armijo-Hussein, a 12­year-old member of the prosecutionteam whose mother teaches religionand rebellion at Stanford, said shethought the team had a strong burglarycase against Goldilocks. "They didn'tinvite her in," she reminded fellowprosecutors.But earlier in the day, Hussein worriedthat the jury would sympathizewith the suspect. "She's definitelyguilty," she said outside the courtroom."She looks innocent. The only reasonthey're so nice to her is because she'scute.... It's our only weakness."And things seemed to go badly forthe prosecution with the questioning ofMama Bear. Do you make excellentporridge? the prosecution asked."Objection!"V\That's the basis for the objection?the judge [Vice Provost LaDorisCordell '74] asked the defense."Who cares?"It was overruled.Apparently, the six-person jurythreeboys, three girls, all human-didcare.Law Professor Pamela Karlan, donningtiger ears in her role as a defenseattorney, argued persuasively thatGoldilocks did not come into thehouse with the intent to eat the porridge.In fact, the defense said thateven Baby Bear didn't like it, andMama Bear was keeping her child malnourishedby serving only porridge,instead of the recommended five dailyservings of fruits and vegetables.In a controversial move, Karlanplayed the species card, saying thatGoldilocks didn't flee the house out ofguilt, but fear of the animals and theirlarge snouts."In many countries of the world,the bears would eat Goldilocks,"Karlan said.Juror Martin Smith, 14, voted foracquittal, saying, "All the events turnedout good." Baby Bear didn't have to eatthe porridge, and will get a new chair.(It's likely the Bears will pay for thenew furniture. Goldilocks has refusedto pay any damages or apologize, sayingthe Bears owned shoddy furnitureand hadn't apologized for chasing her.)But, as with all fairy tales, theremay eventually be a happy ending.Is there a movie deal in the works?"This was more of a personal familything,'" said Mama Bear, played byZuri Ray-Alladice, 13. "But if Spielbergapproaches, we'll move forward."Copyright © 2003 Sa17 Jose Mercmy News. All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission.