Jurors Ask If the Trial Fits Offense in Stolen Pants Case

A jobless man walks into the Goodwill Thrift Shop in Santa Ana and walks out wearing a pair of pants he didn’t pay for. The price of the pants: $4.99.

The upshot: a months-long journey through the criminal justice system that ended with a three-day trial that cost an estimated $3,600 and left everyone from the prosecutor to the defense attorney to jurors asking themselves if there was a better way.

All parties seem to agree that the system worked--sort of--in the case of People v. Thanh Van Tran, who was convicted last week of misdemeanor shoplifting, fined and sentenced to community service. Goodwill Industries had a right to demand that the law against shoplifting be enforced. It was. Tran had a right to a jury trial. He got one. The prosecutor prosecuted. The defense attorney defended.

But at a time when court funding is short and dockets are crowded, was justice served by tying up 12 jurors, two alternates, two attorneys and a commissioner for a three-day proceeding over clothing that even its original owner didn’t want?

Prosecutor Nagy Marcos and defense attorney Brian Waite both expressed frustration and both said several jurors took the unusual step of complaining to them about the time and money spent in this real-life civics lesson.

Waite said he had little choice but to honor his client’s decision to seek a trial, but he felt it was a misuse of resources: “Should the prosecutor have dismissed the case based on the totality of circumstances? Yes.”

Marcos said he found himself having to defend the decision to go to trial to two jurors who contacted him.

“Just because the dollar value is [insignificant] does not necessarily mean it is not a crime,” Marcos said. “Would it have been any different if it was a $1,000 pair of pants from Nordstrom? . . . It would be grand theft. The same act. Does it make the act any different? No. It’s still theft by larceny.”

Marcos and Waite said several jurors told them that, yes, they thought Tran was guilty and the theft could not be excused. But some of the jurors said they couldn’t understand how such a petty case went as far as it did.

“The whole thing was absurd,” said Maya Ziegler, 43, a psychologist who sat through the entire proceeding as an alternate juror but did not participate in the verdict. Ziegler said the experience has left her with a dimmer view of the justice system. “If they want me to serve on a jury again,” she said, “they’ll have to come after me with a gun.”

While Goodwill officials may also agree that it’s unfortunate the case ended up having to be resolved the way it did, they believe they had little choice but to insist that Tran be prosecuted. The organization’s 12 Orange County stores have experienced a significant number of thefts and officials have implemented a “zero-tolerance” stance against pilferers.

Countywide, Goodwill reported 68 suspected shoplifters to police in 1997. So far, 38 of the 68 were turned over to police. The Orange County district attorney’s office does not keep track of how many of those cases were prosecuted.

“Our mission is not to supply clothing to the needy,” said Joan Dornbach, Goodwill vice president for marketing and public relations. Instead, she said, the organization solicits donations and in turn sells them to raise money for programs and services that serve the needy, including the disabled.

In 1996, Goodwill Industries of Orange County sold $9.1 million in merchandise through its thrift stores, part of its overall $20.2 million budget. Dornbach said the organization has a duty to maintain the public’s trust so that money can continue to flow to the good causes the organization supports.

“We have a responsibility to the public to maximize the best value from what we can obtain from those donations,” Dornbach said.

It was cold and rainy last November when Tran walked into the Goodwill Thrift Shop and yanked on a pair of pants. Tran, who pleaded not guilty, said he was still shopping when he walked outside to see another item that had caught his eye, but then was arrested. Tran said he intended to pay for the pants, but he said there was no chance his story would be believed.

“It’s just me against three security guards. Who are they going to believe? The security guards, of course,” Tran said, adding that he was resigned to his conviction. “If [stealing] is what the jury and the judge said I did, then I will go along with them.”

All parties agree the system cannot work unless it treats crimes involving expensive clothing the same way that it handles some old clothes from Goodwill.

“Everybody knows that merchants don’t catch everybody who steals,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Brent Romney, who oversees municipal courts. “And if you don’t prosecute the few, there [are] no deterrent effects to stop people from stealing.”

Countywide, 61 petty theft cases--defined as thefts valued under $400--went to trial in 1997, according to the district attorney’s office. And others besides Tran have certainly been tried for stealing much less--a slice of pepperoni pizza, a rusty garden tool or a pack of cigarettes, relatively minor acts that were taken to court because the culprits had lengthy criminal histories.

Tran, who was living with his brother’s family at the time of the incident and drove a 22-year-old station wagon, does not have a felony record--although he was convicted for his role in a case of domestic violence several years ago.

After being detained at the Goodwill store that day, Tran stripped off the pants and returned them to the store, he said.

Tran received a sentence of 28 days of community service and $170 in fines. He was also banned from shopping at Goodwill for the next three years.

All the hassle was not worth the pants that were “ugly and . . . didn’t even fit,” said Tran, who said he did odd jobs such as house cleaning before becoming unemployed.

At one point in the trial, both sides raised so many objections and arguments--including a dispute about whether Tran had given a sweater to a girl in the shop without paying for it--that the commissioner presiding over the case admonished the lawyers, saying, “Can we just move on with this case?”

Ziegler, the alternative juror, said some in the jury box became frustrated, shaking their heads and rolling their eyes as they listened to testimony. A few, Ziegler said, joked among themselves that they would gladly give Goodwill a few bucks for the pants in exchange for the chance to go back to their daily lives. Others could not fathom why such a case would be tried at all, she said.

“I was ready to tear my hair out,” Ziegler said. “There’s got to be more important cases than this.”