Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Was Dog Mauling Case Verdict the Right One?

Aired March 22, 2002 - 07:12   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: The big question this hour is: Was it the right verdict?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Count one. We, the jury, in the above- entitled action find the defendant, Marjorie Knoller, guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAFFERTY: The defendant, Marjorie Knoller, is now looking at a sentence of 15 years to life; her husband, Robert Noel, facing up to four years in prison. The jury of seven men and five women deliberated for two days before deciding the couple was guilty on all counts in the deadly dog attack on Diane Whipple.

Still, it apparently was not an easy decision. Knoller's own testimony may have been what turned jurors against her. We'll learn more about that in a moment.

Joining us from Los Angeles is the foreman of the jury, Don Newton. Mr. Newton, it is nice to have you with us -- good morning and welcome.

DON NEWTON, JURY FOREMAN: Good morning. Thank you.

CAFFERTY: A murder conviction in the state of California based on the activities of a dog is unprecedented. It has never happened before. How did you get there?

NEWTON: Well, it really wasn't about dogs. It was about the reckless and dangerous behavior of Marjorie Knoller and her husband in relation to bringing these dangerous animals into a building and failing to heed any kind of warnings. They had never muzzled the dogs. They never put a choke collar on them, and they knew that these dogs were extremely dangerous.

CAFFERTY: Was there anything that the defendants or their lawyers could have done during the trial that might have caused the jury to come back with a different verdict? In other words, as you look back over the trial, was there a point at which they kind of blew it, for want of a better word? NEWTON: Well, I think that they -- there was something wrong about putting Marjorie Knoller on, because her testimony tried to paint her as a victim in the case, and tried to make it as if her pain and suffering was equivalent to the woman who was killed. And this was just not convincing.

CAFFERTY: Do you think it was a mistake to put her on the stand? I mean, a lot of lawyers will say that it's very risky putting the defendant in a criminal trial on the stand, because you obviously open them up to cross examination by the prosecutors. If you had been advising her, do you think it was a mistake for her to take the stand in her own defense?

NEWTON: Well, you know, like I'm not a lawyer, but...

CAFFERTY: No, I know (ph).

NEWTON: ... I think that her own testimony and the contradictions in her testimony were key in realizing that this woman really could not be believed, and that basically we had to examine whether or not she was guilty of second-degree murder, which is implied malice. Not directly saying I'm going to kill you and then killing somebody, but that she -- the pattern of her actions was such that she had no regard for human life, and that she knew that in taking these dogs out under any circumstances that she couldn't control the dog, and she never made an attempt to, as I say, muzzle or put a choke collar on the dogs.

CAFFERTY: Let me ask you for your impressions of Nedra Ruiz, who was the lead defense attorney in this. She got a lot of attention from the news media, I guess I part because of her dramatics and maybe even theatrics in the courtroom. What was your impression of her presentation?

NEWTON: Well, she tried very, very hard. She is an amazing, as you said, dramatic, incredibly loud and boisterous lady. But she did push it past the point of believably at some points. A lot of it was obviously acting. She knew exactly what she was doing, a lot of the time shuffling papers, pretending to be inspired, and meanwhile going directly back to the point.

CAFFERTY: Was there anyone on the jury who was reluctant to vote for the murder conviction? Or were you all pretty much in agreement as the deliberations unfolded over those two days?

NEWTON: Our deliberations were pretty much steady and based on the massive amount of testimony that we had heard. And I think that the jury was pretty unanimous in its decision at the end. We did take time off to let people think overnight about the second-degree murder conviction.

CAFFERTY: Right. All right, Mr. Newton, I appreciate you joining us on AMERICAN MORNING and sharing your thoughts with us -- thank you for being with us.

NEWTON: You're welcome. CAFFERTY: Don Newton, the jury foreman in the dog mauling trial joining us this morning from southern California.

Justice has been done, that was the reaction from the mother of Diane Whipple to yesterday's murder and manslaughter convictions in her daughter's death. And a few minutes before we went on the air this morning, I talked with Penny Whipple-Kelly and her lawyer, Ron Rouda, about the verdicts.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CAFFERTY: Penny, when this case went to the jury, realistically, what did you expect they might come back with here?

PENNY WHIPPLE-KELLY, DIANE WHIPPLE'S MOTHER: Well, I was very hopeful of the first four minor charges. I wasn't quite so sure about the murder two charge, because it has never happened with a dog case or an animal case as this one is in California.

CAFFERTY: Right. What do you suppose it was...

KELLY: So I was very happy.

CAFFERTY: What do you suppose it was about the case that caused the jury to convict on second-degree murder? As you suggest, it was a rather unusual verdict. There is not a lot of precedent for this.

KELLY: Well, they proved the willful intent and the total disregard for human life that Marjorie Knoller showed, and that proved out through the trial. And the prosecution was excellent at hitting their points and very organized, and I think that played a big part in it. And he also discredited her a lot during her own testimony.

CAFFERTY: Can you share with us your decision to remain in the courtroom during what were arguably some very difficult moments? There was a lot of very graphic evidence, pictures, things like that, presented concerned the death of your daughter. A lot of people, in fact, chose to leave the courtroom during that part of the trial. Why did you choose to put yourself through that part of it?

KELLY: Well, I did leave during some of the pictures of my daughter. Those were a little bit too much, but I feel that my daughter would have wanted me to be there. So I was more or less there for her, and her spirit helped me to keep on going through it step by step.

CAFFERTY: Can you tell us a little about your relationship with your daughter? There are reports in the press that a good part of her childhood was spent with her grandparents. Share with us a little bit about your relationship with her, if you would.

KELLY: Well, I had Diane when I was rather young, so I -- after the first year or so, I had moved back in with my parents. But that was more or less like the grandparents watched her while I was working or whatever I was doing. I went back to school and things like that. It isn't true that I wasn't there. I was there for most of her childhood.

CAFFERTY: All right. Mr. Rouda, let me ask you about the civil suit that has been filed. You are joining in the suit with Sharon Smith's survivor lawsuit. Sharon Smith was Penny Whipple-Kelly's daughter's domestic partner. Who are you suing, and what are you asking for?

RON ROUDA, WHIPPLE-KELLY'S ATTORNEY: Well, this is a wrongful death lawsuit filed on behalf of Penny Whipple-Kelly, and Sharon Smith's case is going to be consolidated with Penny's case. It will be tried probably toward the end of the year. It's against, of course, Noel and Knoller, and also the landlord and the management company. Tenant safety is the key issue in this suit against the landlord. How could a landlord miss all the warning signs that 30 plus witnesses testified to at the criminal trial? And how can tenants be exposed to these huge, ferocious dogs...

CAFFERTY: How much damage...

ROUDA: ... in the narrow confines...

CAFFERTY: How much damages are you looking for?

ROUDA: Well, the damages -- yes, the California law does not permit you to specify the damages at the outset.

CAFFERTY: Oh, OK.

ROUDA: But at the time of the trial, we will determine the amount for the loss of Penny's daughter...

CAFFERTY: All right.

ROUDA: ... who was struck down obviously in the prime of her life.

CAFFERTY: All right. I want to thank you both for visiting with us here on AMERICAN MORNING. Penny Whipple-Kelly, who is Diane Whipple's mother...

KELLY: Thank you.

CAFFERTY: ... and Ron Rouda, who is Ms. Whipple-Kelly's attorney -- thanks to both of you for being with us this morning, and good luck to you.

ROUDA: Thank you very much.

KELLY: Have a good day -- thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.