Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview of Nedra Ruiz, Michael Cardoza

Aired March 20, 2002 - 09:11   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: To Los Angeles now and a much more serious subject. Jury deliberations will continue this morning in the so-called dog mauling trial. Before the jurors got the case yesterday, the defense attorney got a scolding from the judge.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM HAMMER, PROSECUTOR: Time and time again they were warned. Wear a muzzle, put a choke collar on. And they said -- in Mr. Noel's words, I can do whatever I (EXPLETIVE DELETED) please. I can be in any park I want with the dog off leash.

NEDRA RUIZ: Objection, your honor. The dog was on leash at that time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Counsel, there will be no further objection. The jury will recall the evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, it is improper, and counsel's conduct is improper by standing up in closing argument and objecting to her recollection of what the evidence was. The jury will recall what the evidence is, arguments of counsel are not evidence, and it is improper, and Ms. Ruiz, please take your seat -- now -- and not get up again or your next objection will be made from the holding cell behind you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAFFERTY: Well, joining us now is Nedra Ruiz, attorney for the defendant in this case, Marjorie Knoller. She joins us from Los Angeles. And in San Francisco, Michael Cardoza, attorney for Sharon Smith, who was the domestic partner of the victim in this case, the dog mauling victim, Diane Whipple.

CAFFERTY: Welcome to both of you. Nice to have you here.

MICHAEL CARDOZA, ATTORNEY FOR SHARON SMITH: Good morning.

NEDRA RUIZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR MARJORIE KNOLLER: Good morning.

CAFFERTY: Ms. Ruiz, let me begin with you. The judge, obviously, was not pleased with your behavior during closing arguments. Is it unusual, and is it proper for you to do what you did, and do you have any regrets today over doing it?

RUIZ: It's absolutely proper. Marjorie Knoller has a right, as does every criminal defendant, to have the errors in evidence or facts that are stated by opposing counsel, to have those errors corrected immediately. To have objections, based upon those errors put in front of the court immediately. It was very unusual to have the court immediately threaten me with jail. Certainly the day...

CAFFERTY: The judge said -- I don't mean to interrupt, but the judge said -- he made it clear in the sound bite during closing argument didn't think it was appropriate.

RUIZ: Absolutely -- it is absolutely appropriate. It is legal. My -- Marjorie Knoller has a Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and representation of counsel at all stages of the proceedings. Certainly, Mr. Hammer was not threatened with jail when he objected during my closing argument the day before, and this unequal treatment, I am sure, was not ignored or passed unnoticed by the jury. I made an objection...

CAFFERTY: All right, let me -- let me move forward here, as our time is limited. I want to play a piece of tape for both of you to react to, and it is part of the statement from the prosecutor, Jim Hammer, a part of his closing statement to the jury, and let's listen to this and then we can talk about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAMMER: What more telling evidence could that be -- could there be, than when prior victims to Ms. Whipple experienced violence from these dogs, either actual in the term of a bite, like Mr. Mojer (ph), or threatened violence like lunging into the face of a little boy or the stomach of a pregnant woman? Or when someone warned them, Put a muzzle on that dog. Please, look what your dog could do. How does he respond?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAFFERTY: All right, I want to get your reaction. I would like to start with you, Mr. Cardoza. The prosecution says that all they have to do to get a conviction, basically, in this case is to prove that the defendants knew that these dogs were dangerous, and I suppose the question for us is, based on what you've seen in the courtroom, have they proved that, and have they made their case? Will the jury convict based on that premise?

CARDOZA: I think the jury clearly will convict of a second- degree murder. They showed approximately 34 previous incidents that only Mr. Noel and Ms. Knoller knew about, and yet they did nothing to maintain or control their dogs. They were the ones that knew. I knew Ms. Ruiz argued to the jury that nobody reported it, and she put a big zero on the board. Nobody reported it.

But think about that. What the dogs did was lunge at people. They almost bit a pregnant woman, right in her stomach. They almost bit a 6-year-old boy right in his face. Defense questioned that, and said, Well, why didn't people report it? Why didn't people report it?

Common sense tells you, if you report that to the police, they are going to just push you away and say, What do you mean, you were almost bitten? But it speaks loudly to the defendants, saying Hey, you have got really dangerous dogs. Then you have to take into consideration the size of these dogs. They look like dogs on steroids. I mean, these are huge dogs.

CAFFERTY: Ms. Ruiz, obviously you have a different view of the prosecution's case, but the question is, what sort of responsibility does a dog owner have in a case like this?

RUIZ: Well, certainly, a dog owner has a responsibility to act on complaints that are made to him or her about the way they control their dogs. Overwhelmingly, the witnesses called by the prosecution testified that Marjorie and Robert control these dogs so that the dogs never touched the witnesses. Over and over again, Robert and Marjorie prevented these dogs from having any physical contact with these people, and that is why those folks never complained, because the dogs were acting normally, and because Robert and Marjorie were controlling the dogs very responsibly. The dogs were on leash, and, in the few instances when the dogs were off leash, when they actually approached people, off leash. They never touched or harmed the people in any way. Now, certainly that speaks to the fact that Robert and Marjorie had no idea that these dogs, who had been obedient on leash, a loyal -- a loving pet, that Robert and Marjorie had no idea that these would do harm, dangerous, physical harm, or kill anybody.

CAFFERTY: Mr. Cardoza, I see you shaking your head.

CARDOZA: No, I am shaking my head, because how many times did they have to see their dogs lunging at people, and to say, Well, they were controlling their dogs? No. Remember what happened on the day of this incident. Those dogs were brought into a hallway. One was on leash, one was apparently off leash, and down the hallway they go. No. You don't get to let -- and observe these dogs almost bite people and say, golly gee, we're controlling them. What happened in this case was exactly what these people knew could have happened, and that was someone was going to be either seriously injured or killed by these massive dogs. You don't get to say, gee, we prevented it from happening a couple of times, so we're controlling them. No. Put muzzles on them. Take one of them out. In this case, she took two dogs out.

CAFFERTY: All right. Our time, unfortunately, is expired, but I would issue an invitation here to the two of you, that perhaps we can discuss this case further after the jury hands up its verdict. I would like to invite you both back on "American Morning." We will do that at some point in the future. In the meantime, thank you for your time this morning.

CARDOZA: You're welcome.

RUIZ: Thank you.

CAFFERTY: Nedra Ruiz was Marjorie Knoller's attorney, one of the defendants in this case, and Michael Cardoza, who represents the domestic partner of Ms. Whipple, the victim in this. Sharon Smith is his client. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com