Murder term again a possibility for woman in S.F. dog-mauling death

[RamboLiberal]

Source: SF Chronicle

The woman convicted in the 2001 dog-mauling death of a neighbor in their San Francisco apartment building could once again face a murder sentence because of a state Supreme Court ruling today.

In a unanimous decision, the court said a trial judge had used an overly lenient standard when he reduced a jury's second-degree murder conviction to involuntary manslaughter for Marjorie Knoller in the January 2001 death of Diane Whipple. But the justices also said an appellate court used criteria that were too harsh when it reinstated Knoller's murder conviction in 2005.

The court ordered a new judge to reconsider the case and decide whether there was evidence that Knoller "acted with conscious disregard of the danger to human life'' when she took a 140-pound, unmuzzled Presa Canario on a leash into a hallway of the Pacific Heights apartment building. The animal charged at Whipple, a 33-year-old lacrosse coach, who suffered 77 wounds including a fatal puncture to the neck.

---

Knoller was paroled in 2004 after serving most of a four-year sentence for involuntary manslaughter. If her murder conviction is reinstated, she would be returned to prison for 15 years to life. Noel, who was not present during the attack, was also convicted of manslaughter and has been paroled.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/31/BAGU4Q4L3U6.DTL

---

Wow, I have never heard of this happening. I got mixed feelings on this. I read everything I could on this case and I will say these two were really strange and were totally responsible for those 2 freaky dogs they kept in that apartment.

[ronnykmarshall]

1. Throw her ass in jail.

It's too bad that pig of a husband of hers can't join her. Fucking pieces of shit.

[Donnachaidh]

2. HOW the hell did she get paroled?

She should have served EVERY DAY of her conviction.

[High Plains]

19. California's prisons are brimful.

And the taxpayers are paying the price of decades of harsh sentencing policies.

[musette_sf]

3. i even read the book about it

and it's just too, too creepy. these two had some kind of weird fantasy thing going on with a Pelican Bay inmate, who they ultimately adopted.

these two were professional litigators, and i do not mean that in a good sense. anyone who would try to interfere with their ugly behavior (landlords, ppl who tried to sue over previous incidents with the dogs, etc.) would get litigated by them until they went away. i generally do not like lawyer trash-talk, but these two getting removed from the state bar was LONG overdue, and IMHO they each never got what they really deserved in court. good on the CA Supremes.

[RamboLiberal]

4. I read the book as well - and I totally agree with you

Too bad they can't throw his butt back in prison. I can't even imagine the horror poor Diane Whipple went through.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Sounds like the Phelps family

Most of them have lost their licenses to practice law in Kansas for this very type of stuff.

[Auggie]

5. I can't imagine how they're going to prove she "acted with conscious disregard."

[youngdem]

6. This case isn't just negligence

This case is about two people who consciously raised killer dogs to fulfill a weird fantasy to see the dogs used.

If these were two crazies with a gun fetish who shot a neighbor for an unknown insane reason, there would be no debate. The same thing happened here. Two crazy assholes raised a dog to be a killer because they wanted to own a killer dog, and Ms. Whipple paid with her life.

Seems easy to prove conscious disregard when you intend to raise a killer and fight anyone who tries to get you to take more measures to protect the public from an attack by these dogs.

She deserves a murder conviction as does he.

I am still shocked by how this case turned out.

[Honeycombe8]

7. Absolutely. Before I heard the facts, I thought the reaction was too harsh.

But when I read the facts, I arrived at same conclusion as you.

These two deserve to be in prison. Crazy people with killer dogs. And one poor woman dead.

[depakid]

27. Bad facts make bad law

Despite what the court claims, it seems to me that they risk expanding the notion of malice into territory that's generally deemed negligence:

With respect to the first issue, we reaffirm the test of implied malice we set out in People v. Phillips (1966) 64 Cal.2d 574 and, as mentioned on page 16, post, reiterated in many later cases: Malice is implied when the killing is proximately caused by “ ‘an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life.’ ”

In short, implied malice requires a defendant’s awareness of engaging in conduct that endangers the life of another— no more, and no less.

That's a VERY broad standard for second degree murder- and I can think of all sorts of cases that this might apply to that most knowledgeable and critical thinkers wouldn't find rising to the malicious mental state we normally associate with murder.
-----------

The court continues:

Measured against that test, it becomes apparent that the Court of Appeal set the bar too low, permitting a conviction of second degree murder, based on a theory of implied malice, if the defendant knew his or her conduct risked causing death or serious bodily injury. But the trial court set the bar too high, ruling that implied malice requires a defendant’s awareness that his or her conduct had a high probability of resulting in death, and that granting defendant Knoller a new trial was justified because the prosecution did not charge codefendant Noel with
murder.

Because the trial court used an incorrect test of implied malice, and based its decision in part on an impermissible consideration, we conclude that it abused its discretion in granting Knoller a new trial on the second degree murder count. It is uncertain whether the court would have granted the new trial had it used correct legal standards.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S134543.PDF

[pitohui]

8. they terrorized and killed that woman over time

it's a long story, look it up sometime, the dog attack was not the first time they'd terrorized her with this animal

four years is not enough

[ljm2002]

16. Well, let's see now...

...you could start with the documented 50 or so other incidents with the dogs, complaints within and outside of the apartment complex, from many people. You could add one of the other times that their dog lunged for Ms. Whipple. You could add that the animal -- clearly a danger of biting someone, as it had in fact bitten its owner -- was outside without a muzzle. If it had a muzzle on it would not have been able to kill Ms. Whipple.

Then add in the fact that both dogs were bred to be killers, and the lawyers caring for the dogs knew that full well.

I don't think it will be that hard to show conscious disregard, not at all.

[Auggie]

25. I just heard the D.A. who prosecuted this case on local Bay Area radio this morning.

I was unaware of the prior complaints and history of the dogs. I was unaware of the Grand Jury indictment of murder. Yeah, she consciously knew. So did her husband. They both need to go to jail. Directly to jail. And to not pass Go or collect $200.00.

[Cha]

9. Poor Diane

Whipple..Those owners of the vicious dog should have to stay in prison longer than 4 years for being responsible for killing someone with their lethel weapon.

[mitchum]

10. Good (n/t)

[BikeWriter]

11. Presa Canarios are very dangerous animals!

Yes, they are responsible for the death.

[Javaman]

12. Having lived in apartments for a good part of my adult life...

I have seen some scary ass dogs that people keep locked up and chained in their apartments.

Personally, I think there should be a requirement for anyone renting an apartment with a dog. The dog must be trained. Period.

this is a horrible story and these two nuts need to go away for a very long time.

[tabasco]

13. Involuntary manslaughter was injustice.

Having a killer dog unleashed is conscious disregard IMO.

[E-Z-B]

14. I think this is the case where the victim was gay, and the owners didn't really do anything to stop

the attack because they didn't like her for being gay, if I recall correctly. Can anyone confirm/deny this?

[RamboLiberal]

15. Whipple was gay but I've never read anything that this figured

in to the attack and I read all I could find on the case including the book which I believe was titled "Red Zone" which is a description of the mode a dog can go in to that makes it extremely dangerous.

[pitohui]

17. yeah that's the case

it is unclear if they hated the woman for being gay or if they just didn't care who they killed, but this particular woman -- and not a weak woman, but an athlete and a coach -- had been previously been terrorized with this very dog

i know not if they targeted her as a lesbian, making it a hate crime, or if they just wanted to hurt/kill someone/anyone for a thrill but these people were pure evil and that's enough for me to want them sent away from society for a long, long time

post #16 has some more information, it isn't impossible to me that they wanted to see how the dog would do against a strong woman, but you can prove the negligent disregard for human life, hard to get into somebody's mind and fully prove that they hoped to hurt/kill someone -- it just seems to me, based on number of incidents, that they knew and wanted someone to be hurt for whatever thrills of their own

[RamboLiberal]

23. No I don't think Knoller set the dogs loose intentionally

She was just too damn weak to control those two beasts. As is shown on the Dog Whisperer she was not the pack leader but a dumb follower. But they were two people who were self-centered and a weird and didn't really give a damn about other people and gloried in these two dogs. And while Whipple was an athlete, I'd bet even a strong man would have had a problem fending off two Presa's in a red zone rage. They are big strong dogs.

[High Plains]

20. Oh, goodie! A post that provides me with my daily outrage

Will someone please most more stuff I can be outraged about? I need my outrage.

Let's hate hate hate these people. Ah, feels good!

[pitohui]

21. m, okay, i for one think people should be outraged when dogs are set on women

but that's just me, i guess

[RamboLiberal]

24. This is a famous case and it is interesting that it is being

revisited by the court and that someone who thought she had served her time may face more prison time. I always wonder why some DU'ers have to pop in a thread just to express their outrage at a post that others find interesting.

[NorthernSpy]

22. why is our society so tolerant of vicious dogs and their vicious owners?

Those dogs had repeatedly terrorized the neighborhood -- and had bitten people more than once. The owners were either unable or unwilling to control the dogs. Actually, they seemed to think the whole situation was funny. And nobody did anything?

I'll never understand it.


If that dog had bitten me, I'd have killed it. Litigate that, shysters.

[nebula]

26. The most disturbing thing about this case

is that the judge dismissed the jury's verdict, despite the overwhelming evidence to support a guilty of murder verdict. And then he lets the owners off with a slap on the wrist.

What an outrageous miscarriage of justice. I think that worthless judge should have been disbarred or impeached or whatever. Better yet, feed him to the dogs.