Posted: 6/17/2002 1:23:10 PM EDT
watching court TV live..on the dog mauling where the dog killed someone... ..piont is [b]4 years !!![/b]
what do ya think about that?
right now the lawyer is telling the judge he is wroung in the sentence...
is it right for the owner to go to jail for 4 years cause your dog killed some one..
Im thinking about people that kill someone in a car accident and get a lot less....
If this is the San Francisco trial (sentencing phase), then you've picked the wrong fight (figuratively, of course). Both those lawyers (strike one) trained those dogs to attack and kept them in public-acess dwellings - apartments (strike two) and then failed to keep the animals under control, which resulted in the woman's death (strike three).
The woman was attacked in the hallway outside her apartment, without provocation (that I could see) and while the animals were under the positive control of the owner (the woman). Four years is light when you consider that they were criminally negligent by the training, care, and control of the animals. 10+ years is more like it, and only because I don't see that they meant for the girl to get killed. But, they did mean every other act that lead to that death.
Oh, and you're right about a car accident. It's said that the easiest way to get away with murder in the US is to use a car, and I believe that 100%.
The judge threw out the 2nd degree murder conviction entirely.
Of course, it was amazing that he didn't throw out the whole case and call for a retrial. That crazy defense attorneys antics probably will be grounds. The next rung up the latter in the appeals process will probably force a retrial.
man = 4 years
kids came in and changed the channel so didnt get all the facts ...
still a hell of a long time..
I could see if she ordered the dog to attack.. but from what I heard it didnt happen that way..
either way its over now..
I dont really know who to feel bad for ... the people in jail for thier [b]dog[/b] killing some one... or the family of the dead woman..
oh yeah I wonder what ever happened to the FT-Worth woman that hit the homless guy and left him to die.. then had her friends remove the body says later....bet she dosnt get life ( hope she does...)
By KIM CURTIS
.c The Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO (June 17) - A judge threw out a second-degree murder conviction Monday against Marjorie Knoller in the 2001 dog mauling that killed a neighbor, but let stand involuntary manslaughter convictions against Knoller and her husband, Robert Noel.
Though Superior Court Judge James Warren said Knoller and Noel are ''the most despised couple in this city,'' he said the evidence did not support a murder conviction because Knoller had no way of knowing her dogs would kill someone when she left her apartment that day.
Knoller and Noel were arrested after their two huge presa canario dogs pounced on 33-year-old college lacrosse coach Diane Whipple outside her San Francisco apartment door on Jan. 26, 2001, as she carried groceries home.
Knoller, who was with the dogs at the time of the attack, was convicted in March of second-degree murder. She also was found guilty, along with her husband, of manslaughter and having a mischievous dog that killed someone.
Knoller, 46, could have faced 15 years to life in prison on the murder conviction. She and Noel, 60, now face up to four years on the other convictions.
Sentencing for Knoller and Noel on the involuntary manslaughter convictions was set for later Monday.
San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan said he was unsure whether to retry Knoller on the second-degree murder charge.
''I was surprised. I thought this went beyond manslaughter. This was a second-degree murder case. We'll try to get the maximum we can on the sentences that are left and then decide,'' he said.
''They should have let that murder count stand.''
Sharon Smith, Whipple's domestic partner, shed a tear as Warren read his ruling.
''This is a big shock for Sharon Smith that she didn't deserve on top of everything else,'' Hallinan said.
Warren threw out the murder conviction despite saying he did not believe much of Knoller's testimony, and that both Knoller and Noel acted terribly in the days following the attack. He said they were cavalier about Whipple's death, and even blamed the dead woman in interviews.
''Their conduct from the time that they got the dogs to the weeks after Diane Whipple's death was despicable,'' the judge said.
Knoller and Noel, both lawyers, went on the offensive almost immediately after the attack, granting numerous interviews. They hired and fired lawyers, who warned them their public comments were hurting their case.
In court papers, Knoller's attorneys argued that her trial lawyer, Nedra Ruiz, did not competently represent her; that the judge improperly allowed prosecutors to associate her with a white supremacist prison gang; and that Knoller could not legally be convicted of both murder and involuntary manslaughter.
During the trial, Ruiz's courtroom theatrics included shouting, kicking the jury box and waving her arms. She got down on all fours to re-enact what she described as Knoller's attempts to protect Whipple.
[i]Question, how did she get life for involuntary manslaughter[/i]?