S.F. Mauling Case Readied for L.A. Court

A gruesome criminal case that outraged this pet-friendly city and inspired tougher restrictions on the owners of dangerous dogs is expected to go to trial in Los Angeles this month.

Before jury selection begins, however, lawyers for Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel--whose two Presa Canario fighting dogs killed a neighbor in an apartment building hallway--will appear in Superior Court here today. At issue are legal points that only fuel the bizarre nature of the upcoming trial, expected to last several months.

Attorneys for the couple, who are themselves lawyers, are asking for separate trials, saying the pair could be found guilty by association in the mauling death last winter of athlete Diane Whipple--an assault so grisly that police at the scene needed counseling.

If the move is successful, officials say, the case could be delayed or could proceed under a scenario in which the defendants are tried in the same courtroom but before two different juries.

Also at issue is how much jurors should be told about the couple’s peculiar relationship with a Pelican Bay prison inmate and the Aryan Brotherhood prison ring that prosecutors say organized the breeding of attack dogs like the two that attacked Whipple.

Officials say the judge’s exclusion of such crucial facts could jeopardize the case.

The trial was moved to Los Angeles after a torrent of publicity that included reports of an Aryan Brotherhood death threat against one prosecutor. San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren has ordered attorneys not to speak publicly on the case.

Despite such distractions, a lawyer familiar with the case says the prosecution’s job is clear-cut.

“They have to prove the couple knew those dogs were dangerous and that they showed disregard for human life by keeping them in the manner they were kept,” said Michael Cardoza, a former prosecutor who has filed a wrongful-death suit against the couple on behalf of Whipple’s partner, Sharon Smith, and the victim’s mother.

The attack occurred Jan. 26, 2001, when Whipple, a petite 33-year-old college lacrosse coach, was carrying groceries into her sixth-floor Pacific Heights apartment. At the same time, Knoller emerged from her own unit with the dogs, Bane and Hera.

Both dogs suddenly bounded toward Whipple, who stood 5-foot-3 and weighed 110 pounds. Bane, weighing 123 pounds, bit Whipple’s throat. Hera, weighing 112 pounds, tore at her clothing in an agonizingly lengthy attack that left Whipple bleeding profusely from a neck wound, authorities say.

Larger Dog Destroyed; Other Held as Evidence

Each time Knoller tried to get between the larger dog and Whipple, the animal attacked again, eventually dragging Whipple 20 to 50 feet down the hallway. That dog has been destroyed. Hera remains with animal control officials as possible evidence at the trial.

Indicted by a grand jury, Knoller faces a second-degree murder charge and could be sentenced to 15 years in prison. Both Knoller and Noel also have been charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Furor over the attack led state legislators to toughen a law on the keeping of dangerous dogs. The new law, which took effect Jan. 1, makes it a felony to keep a dog that hurts someone seriously, not just fatally.

“This is a city absolutely enthralled with dogs, and this case goes against everything dog-loving San Franciscans believe--that dogs can turn killer and that their owners can go to trial,” Cardoza said. “You also have two defendants with a proclivity to speak their own minds. The things they have said publicly have only raised more interest in this case. Their egos transcended their common sense.”

In interviews, Knoller and Noel--lawyers who built a practice defending the rights of state prison inmates--have challenged the investigation and once sent prosecutors an 18-page letter outlining their version of events. Noel also suggested that Whipple attracted the dogs by wearing perfume or taking steroids.

The pair also want to exclude details about their relationship with prison inmate Paul “Cornfed” Schneider. Officials say Schneider and another inmate ran a scheme to orchestrate the breeding of killer attack dogs from their prison by persuading a rural Northern California woman to care for and train the animals.

The couple’s ties to Schneider are even more personal: Knoller and Noel had adopted Schneider as their son before the attack.

In court papers, prosecutors say such details show “the nature and depth of the conspiracy between the parties to raise aggressive and vicious dogs, and the close, more-than-professional relationship that existed” between the couple and Schneider--who is serving a life sentence without possibility of parole for attempted murder and aggravated assault while in prison.

Prosecutors say knowledge of the relationship is crucial if Schneider testifies, showing he has reason to lie on behalf of the two lawyers.

In a responding court brief, Knoller’s attorney, Nedra Ruiz, says the prosecution is trying to “taint the defendants with the completely unsubstantiated allegation of involvement in [a] . . . conspiracy with prisoners.”

Defense Seeks to Bar Neighbors’ Testimony

The couple’s lawyers also want to exclude testimony from at least 10 neighbors who had encounters with the two dogs--along with the fact that Bane was known by neighborhood residents as “Beast,” “Killer Dog” and “Dog of Death”--saying that it would prejudice the case.

The couple have also pointed a finger at each other for actions that they say could jeopardize their right to a fair trial.

Knoller’s “actions on that terrible day will be the focus and the centerpiece of this litigation,” according to papers filed by Noel’s court-appointed attorney, Bruce Hotchkiss. “Mr. Noel’s guilt is predicated solely on the theory that he should not have brought the dogs into the city at all, and that he should not have entrusted them to Mrs. Knoller to care for by herself.”

Court papers also include a letter Noel sent to Schneider before the attack, which prosecutors in court papers characterize as “bragging about scaring a woman . . . almost to death.”

In the letter, which defense lawyers want stricken as potential evidence, Noel writes of an encounter before the fatal attack in which a terrified Whipple waits for an elevator: “As soon as the door opens at 6, one of our newer female neighbors, a timorous little mousy blond . . . is met by the dynamic duo exiting and all most [sic] has a coronary--the mutts show only passing interest as she gets in and goes down.”

Prosecutors say the letter shows that Noel’s “desire to please Mr. Schneider by raising vicious and aggressive dogs is reflected in his gleeful and sarcastic account of the encounter with Diane Whipple.”

Tried together or separately, the couple’s fate will rest on the impression they make with the jury, attorney Cardoza predicts.

“Juries sense what people are like,” he said. “They listen and watch. In the end, they’ll have a true picture of the mind-set of these two defendants.”