Girl freed despite eating porridge and using beds.

The following article by Kim Vo appeared in the San Jose Mercury news on Friday, April 25, 2003.

Goldilocks was free to get lost in the woods again after a jury acquitted her of burglary charges Thursday, apparently buying into the defense’s argument that no child would break into a house just to eat Mama Bear’s awful porridge. 

It was a bitter defeat for the government-Stanford Law School Dean Kathleen M. Sullivan, who delivered the prosecution’s closing argument, complained of “jury nullification.” Nonetheless, it was also a good lesson for the children participating in Take Your Daughters and Sons to Work Day. 

Like many businesses, Stanford invited its employees to take their children to work Thursday, trying to inspire the children to think about careers. Instead of just having approximately 300 kids tag along with their parents, the University developed hands-on workshops on everything from a Junior Iron Chef competition to how to coach athletics. 

The law workshop offered a glimpse into the high-profile world of celebrity trials, complete with scandal, rumors of movie deals, and a glamorous suspect. Reporters (children shadowing Stanford News Service reporter Barbara Palmer) sat in the front row, scribbling in small notebooks. 

The case of Goldilocks and the three bears has already spawned several books. Goldilocks, a small girl with many ringlets, was lost in the woods when she happened upon a house. She went inside and sampled the bowls of porridge that were set out, sat in various chairs, and tried out the beds before falling asleep in the smallest one. It was there she was discovered by the bears, who returned home after a walk in the woods. 

Annamaria Armijo-Hussein, a 12- year-old member of the prosecution team whose mother teaches religion and rebellion at Stanford, said she thought the team had a strong burglary case against Goldilocks. “They didn’t invite her in,” she reminded fellow prosecutors. 

But earlier in the day, Hussein worried that the jury would sympathize with the suspect. “She’s definitely guilty,” she said outside the courtroom. “She looks innocent. The only reason they’re so nice to her is because she’s cute…. It’s our only weakness.” 

And things seemed to go badly for the prosecution with the questioning of Mama Bear. Do you make excellent porridge? the prosecution asked. 

“Objection! ” 

What’s the basis for the objection? the judge [Vice Provost LaDoris Cordell ’74] asked the defense. 

“Who cares?”

 It was overruled. 

Apparently, the six-person jury–three boys, three girls, all human–did care. 

Law Professor Pamela Karlan, donning tiger ears in her role as a defense attorney, argued persuasively that Goldilocks did not come into the house with the intent to eat the porridge. In fact, the defense said that even Baby Bear didn’t like it, and Mama Bear was keeping her child malnourished by serving only porridge, instead of the recommended five daily servings of fruits and vegetables. 

In a controversial move, Karlan played the species card, saying that Goldilocks didn’t flee the house out of guilt, but fear of the animals and their large snouts. 

“In many countries of the world, the bears would eat Goldilocks,” Karlan said. 

Juror Martin Smith, 14, voted for acquittal, saying, “All the events turned out good.” Baby Bear didn’t have to eat the porridge, and will get a new chair. (It’s likely the Bears will pay for the new furniture. Goldilocks has refused to pay any damages or apologize, saying the Bears owned shoddy furniture and hadn’t apologized for chasing her.) But, as with all fairy tales, there may eventually be a happy ending. 

Is there a movie deal in the works? 

“This was more of a personal family thing,'” said Mama Bear, played by Zuri Ray-Alladice, 13. “But if Spielberg approaches, we’ll move forward.”