Posted on 05/07/2005 9:25:51 AM PDT by calcowgirl
SAN FRANCISCO – A state appeals court reinstated the second-degree murder conviction of a San Francisco attorney whose giant dogs mauled and killed a neighbor in the hallway of an apartment building here.
The appeals court, in reversing a lower court judge who vacated the jury's finding against Marjorie Knoller, said Thursday that Superior Court Judge James Warren erred when he reduced the conviction to manslaughter. The 1st District Court of Appeal said Warren erroneously concluded that in order for Knoller to be convicted of murder, she had to know that one of the two giant Presa Canario dogs would kill.
The appeals court sent the case back to Warren to review the decision under a different standard, that Knoller disregarded a known risk that the dogs presented, including the viciousness of Bane, the dog mostly responsible for Diane Whipple's 2001 death. The appeals court upheld the four-year term for Robert Noel, Knoller's husband who was not charged with murder because he was not home during the attack.
The 2001 mauling of the 33-year-old woman made national news because of the heinous nature in which Whipple was killed and because it was two attorneys who kept the 100-pound-plus dogs in their tiny Pacific Heights apartment. They said they were keeping the canines on behalf of a state prisoner, who was a white supremacist accused of running an attack dog circuit from prison. The two eventually adopted the prisoner as their son.
Justice James Lambden, writing for a three-judge panel, said Knoller knew that Bane was a "frightening and dangerous animal: huge, untrained and bred to fight." During the trial, which was held in Los Angeles County because of too much pretrial publicity in San Francisco, there was testimony of at least 11 instances in which the dogs growled, lunged or attacked others, including nearly severing Noel's finger.
The appeals court said the second-degree conviction, which carries a 15-to-life sentence, will stand unless Warren thinks Knoller did not believe the dogs presented a substantial risk. Both defendants have served their four-year terms.
Knoller, 49, was released last year from prison after serving two years of her four-year sentence, and was paroled to Ventura County and now lives in Florida. Noel, 63, served two years of a four-year term before being paroled to Solano County. It is not known whether the two are still married.
Dennis Riordan, Knoller's attorney, said the appeals court had set a new legal standard, meaning Knoller will remain free until the case is finally resolved.
"The majority states that a defendant's disregard of a danger to life is no longer a required element," Riordan said. He said the mental state for murder was now changed, no longer requiring a murder conviction when there was a "conscious disregard for human life."
Now, Riordan said, a perpetrator not caring about somebody's "bodily injury" could be guilty of murder. An example, he said, would be somebody killing somebody with a punch to the face – although that killer had no conscious disregard for life but was punching the person to inflict bodily injury.
"The majority in this case did not apply existing law," Riordan said.
He said he would ask the San Francisco-based appeals court to reconsider, and if they don't, appeal to the California Supreme Court.
Two of the three judges voted against Knoller. A third judge said she should have a new trial to challenge her lesser manslaughter conviction because of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Former San Francisco County prosecutor Jim Hammer, who became an instant celebrity during the televised trial, said he was grateful with the decision.
"It's very emotional because this was one of the most preventable murders I've ever seen," said Hammer, who is a television legal analyst. "There was a meanness and sadistic quality to it. These people got a thrill because their dogs scared people."
San Francisco County District Attorney Kamala Harris did not have an immediate reaction to the ruling, a spokeswoman said.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office appealed Warren's decision and was satisfied with the verdict.
"It basically stands for the proposition that the decisions made by juries should not be overridden by judges except in the most unusual circumstance, and this is not one of them," said Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar.
On appeal, both defendants argued that the prosecution's portrayal of them as being white supremacist sympathizers prejudiced the jury, a claim the appeals court rejected.
The cases are People v. Knoller, A099366 and A099499 and People v. Noel, A099250.
For once, some justice and common sense in San Francisco.
The callous "she brought in on herself" crack that Knoller made after Whipple was killed sealed her fate.
These were Bay Area liberals who got off on vicious dogs and vicious people.
Manslaugher, yes; murder, not a chance.
More p.c. politics.
Her husband, not even around at the time, was also convicted of murder. Another erroneous verdict by a jury who just hated them and made up their minds LONG before evidence was presented and deliberations were made.
Reminds me of the Scott Peterson jury -- condemned to die on circumstantial evidence. Just plain wrong.
Jury of stupids one's peers.
One more example of our insane legal system.
2001 - Dog kills women
2002 - Women sentenced to 4 years in jail.
2004- Women responsible serves only 2 - just 2(!) years of a four year sentence. She stood by while her dog killed this women.
2005 - Almost 4 years after the attack, the appeals court reverses the Original sentence.
What took them 2 years ?!
One more example of our insane legal system.
2001 - Dog kills women
2002 - Women sentenced to 4 years in jail.
2004- Women responsible serves only 2 - just 2(!) years of a four year sentence. She stood by while her dog killed this women.
2005 - Almost 4 years after the attack, the appeals court reverses the Original sentence.
What took them 2 years ?!
While I don't usually defend liberals these morons were hardly liberals. They were connected to skinhead gangs in prison including her giving a Pelican Bay inmate naked pictures of herself. Not sure how you tag them as liberals.
Oh, come on . . . I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a hundred million men/boys in this country had been in a fistfight at some time or other in their life, in circumstances not having anything to do with self defense. So according to this activist judge we're all murderers at heart and if it weren't for the fickle finger of fate we'd all be sitting in prison where we belong.
The girlie-man culture continues its hundred-year war against testosterone and anyone who has a drop of it in their bloodstream.
Evil shysters like these two monsters are a major public health hazard. The stench these lawyers emit is polluting the environment.
"There was a meanness and sadistic quality to it. These people got a thrill because their dogs scared people."
There are mean people like this, for sure, but no less dangerous are the willfully naive who babble on about how wonderful and safe and kind these monster animals are.
FYI
That was what sealed their fate in the minds of the general SF population. These people were viewed as whacked out and associated with Neo-Nazi's, thus guilty before even charged.
However, I still disagree with the 'Murder' conviction. They did not willingly commit murder. Negligent homicide, yes, but not murder.
Skinheads believe in socialism. Ergo, Skinheads are liberals.
Their ties to the Neo-Nazis offset the Jewish factor.
Which ones are you speaking of here? The judges, prosecution, defense, or perp?
Oh come on. My Rotties tipped the scales at 160 lbs and were the most gentle dogs I've ever owned.
Don't blame the dog, blame the owners. If you are afraid of dogs, stay away from them. Don't go walking into a dogs space.
A dog owners reponsibility is to keep it under control while in public, and confined in his own yard. Regardless of what kind of dog it is, large or small (small dogs bite far more than big dogs) do NOT walk into his space without the owner present.
Yes.
What, isn't most evidence circumstantial? Otherwise, if there wasn't an eye witness, people would walk.
Perhaps the fact that they "adopted" Mr. Cornfed and she sent him, er, "cheesecake" photos of herself might have something to do with it also.
She was a sick woman, no doubt, and I detested her arrogannce, but she was no murderer. The jury decided to convict her AND HER HUSBAND WHO WASN'T EVEN AROUND of murder.
The jury was just as sick and bend as she was.
Precursor of the Scott Peterson trial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.