Criminal Justice
Ex-Lawyer Sentenced to 15 Years to Life in Dog Mauling
Posted Sep 23, 2008 5:29 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A former lawyer whose dogs mauled and killed a neighbor has received a higher sentence—15 years to life in prison—in her second sentencing in the case.
Judge Charlotte Woolard of San Francisco Superior Court sentenced ex-lawyer Marjorie Knoller yesterday for the death of Diane Whipple, the New York Times and Associated Press report. A previous judge had sentenced Knoller to four years in prison after reducing her second-degree murder conviction to involuntary manslaughter.
Woolard reinstated the original conviction after the California Supreme Court ruled the first judge applied the wrong legal standard.
During the hearing, Woolard said Knoller never expressed remorse for the attack and appeared to blame the victim during a television interview, according to a Daily Journal story (sub. req.). Woolard said Knoller knew the dogs were aggressive, and during the attack she did not call 911 or grab a weapon to stop it.
“Indeed, she left Ms. Whipple in the hallway to die," Woolard said. "She has blamed the victim and held the dogs in higher regard than humans."
Knoller’s lawyer, Dennis Riordan, said his client did feel remorse and she would appeal. “In our view,” Riordan told the New York Times, “the notion that she said, ‘Rather than staying home and cooking dinner, I’ll go out and possibly kill somebody,’ is unsupported by the evidence.”
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
cjt
Sep 23, 2008 7:56 AM CST
Seems like a pretty harsh sentence for what actually happened. Obviously she didn’t know her dogs would kill (no one can know what animals are thinking), so the worst mentail state she could have had was recklessness. I would have prosecuted her for whatever California’s version of reckelss homicide is (if the evidence is there). It seems, however, that this talking point that she “blamed the victim” is what seems to be justifying this prosecution. The fact is, most dogs don’t attack humans unless the human does something (whether meaning to or not). What happened to Ms. Whipple is tragic but I’m not sure it justifies a murder conviction.
Flag this comment
cjt
Sep 23, 2008 7:57 AM CST
and of course by “mentail” I meant “mental”... sorry
Flag this comment
abc
Sep 23, 2008 9:57 AM CST
@cjt: “Obviously she didn’t know her dogs would kill (no one can know what animals are thinking)” You have no clue on this case.
Read the CA Supreme Court’s decision on this case to remand for sentecing. The evidence showed that Knoller (base upon all the facts in this case) SHOULD have known her dogs were capable of injuring, harming, and mauling. If my memory is correct, the went after the victim’s throat.
“Blaming the victim”, wrong again. You forget or don’t know what kind of dogs these are/were.
Flag this comment
jbo
Sep 23, 2008 10:34 AM CST
As I recall the facts, the defendant did know the dogs were dangerous, from prior incidents, and that she alone was unable to control them. Once the attack was underway she did nothing to defend or assist the victim. I always thought the original sentence was too lenient.
Flag this comment
Alice
Sep 23, 2008 10:55 AM CST
Some dogs are dangerous because the owners don’t know how to train them and some owners even teach dogs to attack, due to the need of the owner to portray a “macho” image. Some dogs are more dangerous because the strength of their jaw muscles allows them to take hold and not release a victim, and if 2 of those dogs attack a small child (as 2 of them did recently) they can almost kill a child, ripping arteries apart, etc. (I don’t know if that child survived the attack). Dogs with less jaw power can be great guard dogs (fierce barking usually does the job), and who needs an attack dog? People who feel they need to attack are probably criminals anyway.
Flag this comment
mike
Sep 23, 2008 11:03 AM CST
Only in California - a criminal duty to defend a third party from a dog attack. The article did not state that the defendant trained the dogs to attack or commanded them to attack. The article doesn’t even imply that she knew they had attacked before. All animals can be “aggressive;” but, we are talking about the defendant. It seems from the article that the judge made the ruling on the defendant’s lack of remorse. I’m hopeful that there is way more to this that the article decided not to focus on.
Flag this comment
CSC
Sep 23, 2008 1:46 PM CST
I have followed this case since it happened. I believe the dog owners were in this case extremely irresponsible and knew their dogs were dangerous. If I recall, there had been problems or complaints before the fatal attack. The breed was a presa canario, bred/trained as attack dogs, and popular with gangs and other criminals. The victim was not in a position to “call 911” or get a weapon; she was suddenly overpowered by two large, extremely agressive, vicious dogs in the hallway to her apartment. Too many dog owners are out to lunch about canine behavior and obedience training, their legal responsibilities, or even the fact they can lose their homeowners insurance.
Blaming the victim is common. If the dog was out of control it’s an admission by the dog owner that they can’t adequately control an animal which is potentially a weapon due to it’s very nature. If they insist the dog was not out of control it’s tantamount to an admission they directed or condoned the attack. Either way, the dog is often euthanized, and thousands of times a year the victim is killed or maimed, or at the very least incurs medical expense, terror, and perhaps a lifelong fear/hatred of dogs. Irresponsible owners are reviled by both dog haters and true dog lovers. But unless those who are responsible for allowing a dog to hurt or kill someone have to pay dearly themselves, it won’t sink in to the owners heads, that just because you can buy a dog, doesn’t mean you are allowed to let it maul the neighbors.
Flag this comment
Alice
Sep 23, 2008 2:01 PM CST
CSC: Thank you for your posting on this matter. You are right that people should be responsible for their dogs. Here are portions of a story about an attack by a family dog on a 6 year old child:
“The girl’s injuries were so severe that witnesses at first told police the 6-year-old was dead, killed in the attack by one of her family’s pets.
“Officials were still working to determine what will happen to Dozer, who neighbors said has caused problems in the past.
“That one’s been aggressive the last few days,” said Shawnee Hart, who lives nearby. “We’re trying to tell (the owner) the dog’s aggressive.”
But, Hart said, the owner told her, ” ‘No, no, no, they’re friendly dogs. They’re just security dogs.’ Well, you know, your security dog just tore up your child.”
In many news stories on this subject where a child has been maimed or killed, the owners of these dogs often say that the dog just wanted to play!
Flag this comment
Howard Hudson
Sep 23, 2008 10:32 PM CST
These dogs were trained to kill by members of the Aryan Brotherhood incarcerated at Pelican Bay prison. The business they had was called Dogs O’ War, as I recall. To claim she did not know that they were deadly weapons beggars belief. Check out this, among several other stories: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=89
She got a very appropriate sentence. A woman is dead because of her and her killer dogs.
Flag this comment
Dr. Wong
Sep 24, 2008 11:50 AM CST
CJT is misinformed. they are animals and very dangerous. if you look at the breed’s history it is very well established that they have dominance/ alpha male/social issues.
It is like the mother who just pleaded guilt to supplying her son with guns to kill all of the bullies that were picking on him.
Both, people, were facilitators.
She is dodging the accountability factor. She think she is immune…think again!!!
Most people will respond to the sensationalism of the HEADLINE and not look any deeper into the story’s facts! That’s why we have our justice system….they look into the facts!!!!
Flag this comment
elizabeth
Sep 24, 2008 6:35 PM CST
knoller is so stupid!!! Blameed the victom!!! Moron!!!
Flag this comment
jo
Sep 27, 2008 12:11 AM CST
from what I recall, the owner had probable cause to believe the fogs were viscious in that the dogs had menaced other neighbors.
It truly is ashame to had a regal dog such as this only to have an inferior person in allged control. To this extent, I have seen, been witness too and victim of aggressive Min-Pins, Chi-Chis, Snouzers, Poodles, and other mixed small breeds - while I have been walking my big boys, but that is a whole another baited liability issue
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.