Dog-Mauling Murder Conviction Tossed

sandiegochannel.com ^ | June 17, 2002

[let freedom sing]

D.A. 'Shocked;' Lesser Charges Upheld Against Knoller, Noel A San Francisco judge on Monday threw out a second-degree murder conviction against Marjorie Knoller in the 2001 dog mauling that killed a neighbor but refused to grant a new trial on involuntary manslaughter convictions against Knoller and her husband, Robert Noel.

Superior Court Judge James Warren said Knoller and Noel are likely the most despised couple in San Francisco, calling the couple's conduct with their dogs "despicable." But he said that he doesn't think Knoller could have known when she took the dogs out on the day of the attack that they would kill someone. District attorney Terence Hallinan said the prosecution was "shocked" by the judge's decision, adding that he's not sure whether he'll retry Knoller on the second-degree murder charge.

"We'll try to get the maximum we can get on the sentences that are left, and then decide," Hallinan said. Warren said he will announce later Monday the sentencing of Knoller and Noel for convictions on charges of involuntary manslaughter and owning a mischievous dog that killed someone -- convictions that could bring sentences of four years in prison.

Knoller, 46, and Noel, 60, requested a retrial after Knoller was convicted of second-degree murder in March, and her husband of involuntary manslaughter. Knoller was with the dogs when they attacked and killed 33-year-old lacrosse coach and neighbor Diane Whipple on Jan. 26, 2001, outside her apartment.

Sharon Smith (pictured at right), Whipple's domestic partner, shed a tear when the decision was announced and addressed the court afterward.

"I feel that justice was done and was undone today," Smith said. "Frankly I am shocked that we are discussing manslaughter and not murder."

Addressing the court later, Sarah Miller, a friend of Whipple, sobbed as she asked the judge, "What is the point of having a jury trial?"

Knoller was convicted of second-degree murder because she was with the dogs at the time of the attack. The two dogs have since been destroyed.

On the second-degree murder conviction, Knoller would have faced a mandatory sentence of 15 years to life.

[ozzymandus]

Gee, I wonder who appointed the judge?

[vannrox]

Judge is a LIBERAL Activist:

San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren refused to dismiss a series of lawsuits against the makers of the guns and ammunition Gian Luigi Ferri used when he burst into the Pettit & Martin law firm on July 1, 1993, and sprayed its offices with bullets. Using three guns, including two semi-automatic weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, the 55-year-old Ferri killed eight people and wounded six others before turning a gun on himself. Warren ruled that gun manufacturer Navegar, Inc. may be liable under legal theories of strict liability and negligence. Strict liability allows damages to be awarded for any harm caused by a dangerous product. Navegar attorney Ernest Getto disputed that, saying the semi-automatic guns Ferri used were made legally in Florida and sold to Ferri in Nevada - both states without bans on assault weapons at the time.


This Judge was not appointed, but was elected. During the last election he was not on the ballot because an insignifficient number of candidates applied. More info HERE.

[Space Wrangler]

LOL!! California is a liberal cesspool where it is quickly becoming apparrant that crime DOES pay. CA is probably past the point of no return. So, let's review our lesson for the day; if I am thinking of a career in crime, where would be the most friendly atmosphere for my chosen profession? Why, CA of course!! Easy access to cross the border (although I might stand out since I'd be the only one that was heading SOUTH!), strictest gun control in the country (none of my victims will be fighting back, heh heh heh), and even IF I do get caught, I'm most likely to draw a good liberal judge who'll see me as an emotionally damaged man-child, and won't want to see me getting beat up by the system, and greatly reduce my sentence if he doesn't outright set me free!! {hum the tune to the Beverly Hillbilllies for this next line ;>))} Ah yeah, they say California is the place I ought to be, If I wanna rob and steal, and maybe rape a few teens!!

[Poohbah]

Of course, there is the issue of whether the couple had competent legal advice--their lawyer was a raving fruitcake.

[let freedom sing]

She was a raving fruitcake, your Honor.

[Dan Day]

Judge is a LIBERAL Activist:

Liberal or not, it makes perfect sense to toss the murder conviction. It was a travesty that the DA was even pushing for it.

The owner did not intend for the dog to kill or even attack the neighbor, and tried in several ways to get the dog to stop the attack.

Murder requires intent to kill, which was not present in this case.

On the other hand, she probably knew the dog was dangerous, and that's why the manslaughter conviction is appropriate.

[Joe Boucher]

California, so much potential. California, such a complete waste.

[Exigence]

The owner did not intend for the dog to kill or even attack the neighbor, and tried in several ways to get the dog to stop the attack.

These dogs were bought as killers and trained to kill as defenders of the illegal drug trade. The "did not intend for the dog to kill" understates the situation. These dogs were always meant to be vicious and especially meant to be dangerous to humans.

As to trying to get the dog to stop attacking, all I can say is "so she says." This same woman went on national television the very next morning and blamed the victim for not saving herself. It makes it hard to believe that she was trying that hard -- especially since she knew it was *impossible* for her to physically control a single dog of that size, let alone two at once.

[chindog]

=
I wasn't sure, but thought they might be related.

[savedbygrace]

Sarah Miller, a friend of Whipple, sobbed as she asked the judge, "What is the point of having a jury trial?"

Exactly. If the report is accurate in saying the judge, in ruling, "said that he doesn't think Knoller could have known when she took the dogs out on the day of the attack that they would kill someone," then justice is turned on her ear.

[southern rock]

The good DA was taking his marching orders from the gay lobby by pursuing this case. If the victim was a heterosexual white male, instead of a lesbian activist, the DA would be busy with his other politically motivated cases.

Obviously, these dogs were homophobes. /sarcasm

[BikerNYC]

Murder requires intent to kill, which was not present in this case.

No it doesn't. While each state's laws are different, California might be like New York, which allows a Murder in the Second Degree (Murder in the First Degree is killing a cop, etc.) conviction to stand if the defendant, "under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person."

One could easily argue, and a jury could reasonably believe, that allowing those particular dogs out in public without muzzles showed a depraved indifference to human life.

[CounterCounterCulture]

"Justice", Frisco-style. Sickening.