Editorials

SAN FRANCISCO — Citing a lack of evidence, a judge tossed out Marjorie Knoller’s murder conviction Monday in last year’s dog mauling death of a neighbor. He also sentenced Knoller’s husband to the maximum four years in prison. 

Knoller, 46, could have gotten 15 years to life in prison for murder. She now faces up to four years for involuntary manslaughter and having a mischievous dog that killed someone. 

The judge’s decision stunned friends and relatives of the 33-year-old victim, Diane Whipple. Knoller’s sentencing was delayed until at least July 15 so prosecutors can argue that her second-degree murder conviction should be reinstated. 

“We have not yet given up on our chance of convincing the judge that the murder charge is appropriate,” District Attorney Terence Hallinan said. 

Though Warren said Knoller and husband Robert 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 in January 2001. 

“There is no question in this court’s mind that in the eyes of the people, both defendants are guilty of murder,” Warren said. “In the eyes of the law, they are not.” 

Warren pointed out that Noel did not face a murder charge and said that he, in fact, was more culpable than his wife. The grand jury indicted Knoller for murder because she was with the dogs when they fatally attacked Whipple. Noel was out of town. 

Sharon Smith, Whipple’s domestic partner, said she was shocked at the judge’s ruling to throw out Knoller’s murder conviction. During the sentencing hearing, she attacked Knoller and Noel — both lawyers — for never apologizing or accepting blame. 

“I cannot imagine what Diane went through. You can never imagine how I felt knowing the one I loved died alone,” Smith testified through tears. “To aggravate my pain, you’ve never apologized. You were too busy being lawyers to be human. You fail to accept that your actions killed a person.” 

If Warren refuses to change his decision to throw out the murder charge and that decision is upheld on appeal, prosecutors said they would have to consider whether it’s possible to retry Knoller for murder without violating her constitutional right against double jeopardy — since she already is convicted of manslaughter for the same crime. 

“Whether we can retry it or not, we’re not exactly clear,” he said. “It’s a much trickier question.” 

Knoller and Noel were arrested after their two huge presa canario dogs pounced on Whipple outside her San Francisco apartment door on Jan. 26, 2001. 

“I cannot say as a matter of law that she subjectively knew on Jan. 26 that her conduct would cause death,” Warren said. 

Knoller was convicted in March of second-degree murder in a trial moved to Los Angeles because of pretrial publicity. Like Noel, she also was found guilty of manslaughter and having a mischievous dog that killed someone. 

Smith, who also has filed a civil suit in Whipple’s death, shed a tear as Warren threw out the murder conviction. Later, during the sentencing hearing, she angrily argued that both Knoller and Noel should receive the maximum penalty for manslaughter. 

“I shared my life with Diane for seven years. We had our ups and downs. We planned for our future,” Smith said. “You stole that from her. You stole that from me. 

“To you, it’s been one big legal game. This is not a game to me,” she said. “There is no sentence, no amount of time in prison that feels appropriate.” 

Despite throwing out the murder conviction, Warren said he did not believe much of Knoller’s trial 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, calling the dogs “a canine time bomb that would at some inevitable point explode with disastrous consequences.” 

Knoller and Noel went on the offensive almost immediately after the attack. They granted numerous interviews and hired and fired lawyers who warned 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.