Dog Mauling Case Is Sent to the Jury

After four weeks of gruesome and emotional testimony, jurors on Tuesday began weighing the fate of two San Francisco lawyers charged in the dog-mauling death of a neighbor.

The jury started deliberations shortly after a Superior Court judge threatened to jail a defense lawyer for making an improper objection during the prosecution’s closing argument rebuttal.

Defense attorney Nedra Ruiz had objected when the prosecutor said one of the two dogs that killed 33-year-old Diane Whipple was not leashed.

Judge James Warren sternly ordered Ruiz to sit down.

“Do not get up again or your next objection will be made from the holding cell behind you,” Warren said.

Ruiz sat down and remained quiet.

Outside the courtroom, Ruiz said the judge favored the prosecution and that he caved in to political pressure from San Francisco’s gay and lesbian community.

Whipple, a lacrosse coach, died on Jan. 26, 2001, after she was attacked by two large Presa Canario dogs in the hallway outside her apartment, which she shared with partner Sharon Smith.

The dogs’ owners, Marjorie Knoller and husband Robert Noel, were charged with involuntary manslaughter and owning a mischievous dog.

Knoller is also charged with second-degree murder and could face a sentence of 15 years to life in state prison. Noel faces a four-year sentence.

The trial was moved to Los Angeles County Superior Court because of publicity in the Bay Area.

Prosecutors presented 40 witnesses and argued that Whipple died because the defendants arrogantly ignored warnings about their dogs’ dangerous nature.

Defense attorneys presented 28 witnesses and argued that their clients were conscientious dog owners who could never have anticipated that their dogs would kill someone.

The seven-man, five-woman jury has been partially sequestered, eating catered lunches in a private room and being guided into the building through a back entrance.

The panel began deliberations at 10:20 a.m. Tuesday and went home for the day at 4:30 p.m. Deliberations will resume today.

The jurors are diverse in age and race and come from varied educational and professional backgrounds. They include a part-time actor, a custodian, a civil engineer, a bank manager and a machinist. They live throughout Los Angeles County.

A review of jury questionnaires shows that 10 of them have owned dogs, ranging from Labradors to terriers to golden retrievers. Six jurors said they had either been snapped at or bitten by dogs. One wrote that he thought the media exaggerates the dangers of pit bulls, Rottweilers and Dobermans.

One juror, a Philadelphia native who works for child support services of Los Angeles County, wrote in his questionnaire that he has owned a dozen dogs, most rescued from the pound, and that he was partial to mixed breeds. He said he returned one dog to the pound because it nipped at people’s heels.

Another juror, an unemployed casting coordinator, said he once owned two Labradors. His younger brother was once bitten by a German shepherd, he wrote.

A Federal Express courier from Los Angeles said he was on the job once when a dog bit him on the arm. As a child, he wrote, he also owned two mixed-breed dogs, one of which often growled.

A production assistant from Alhambra said she is fond of all dogs and that her sister belongs to an animal rescue group. “Animals are important and need us to protect them,” she wrote.

A part-time actor wrote that she has owned both Rottweilers and bulldogs and that she had bred dogs in the past.

A machinist who works for the city of Los Angeles said he has owned terriers and mixed breeds, and was once bitten while canvassing for politicians. He wrote that sometimes his dog barks at people but never bites.

Howard Varinsky, a jury consultant hired by prosecutors, said he was particularly interested in how jurors answered these questions: When you walk your dog in the city, do you leash it? Have you ever owned a dog that was overly aggressive or vicious? What actions do/did you take to protect other dogs or people from your dog?

“We wanted responsible pet owners,” Varinsky said. “More importantly, we didn’t want people who had pit bulls and Rottweilers only and weren’t responsible with them.”

Defense attorneys said they wanted jurors who had not been seriously bitten by dogs because they might still harbor some anger toward dogs or dog owners.

“There is also too much identification with the victim,” said jury consultant Karen Fleming, hired by Noel’s defense attorney. “It is very easy to think, ‘Well, that could have been me.’”