Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview With Nedra Ruiz, Jim Hammer, Kimberly Guilfoyle- Newsom

Aired March 21, 2002 - 09:06   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: Four down and one to go now as Thelma Gutierrez reported a few minutes ago. The jury in the California dog mauling trial has reached a decision in four of the five counts against the two defendants, Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel. The judge has sealed those four verdicts, and in just a few hours, the jury goes back to work on the final count. Not until they have reached a decision on all five will we know the outcome.

But right now, we do have an exclusive for those of you watching AMERICAN MORNING. For the first time, the lawyers on both sides of this high profile case, the defense and the prosecution are facing off outside the courtroom. Joining us right now from Los Angeles: Nedra Ruiz, who is Marjorie Knoller's attorney, along with prosecutors Jim Hammer and Kimberly Guilfoyle-Newsom, and it's nice to have the three of you with us. Welcome back to the program.

Ms. Ruiz, has the jury said or done anything so far in their deliberations that might give you an inking as to what they're thinking? Any requests, questions, read backs, the kinds of things that you watch as a deliberation goes on?

NEDRA RUIZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR MARJORIE KNOLLER: Well, certainly-- yesterday they requested the testimony of Mr. Robert Noel before the grand jury. This was admitted -- read into the record before our trial jury. And they also -- in that vein, they wanted testimony that he had given before the grand jury about dog aggression, and an incident involving a Mr. Skip Cooley. We're, of course, very concerned that perhaps they are deliberating -- they will be deliberating the murder charge.

We're very hopeful -- Marjorie and I -- that they realize that Marjorie didn't act with conscious disregard for anybody's safety, that if she failed to understand or see the dangerous propensities of the dogs, that it was because she was blinded by love for them, and saw herself and her husband as responsible care takers. I'm just hoping the jury doesn't assign an implied malicious motive to Marjorie's actions because she's certainly never -- never intended to hurt anyone.

CAFFERTY: All right, let me get Kim and Jim in here. Your assignment, as prosecutors, was to prove the charge of second-degree murder in the death of this woman at the hands of these dogs. Did you do that? JIM HAMMER, PROSECUTOR: Well, just to respond to what Ms. Ruiz said. You don't need motive for implied-malice murder. Really, the question is, what did she know as she went into that hallway that day with 240 pounds of dog, one of them not on a leash and without muzzles. And the evidence was that over 30 prior incidents where these dogs lunged at people, bit people, terrified almost everybody in the building, and that's the heart of implied-malice murder.

CAFFERTY: Ms. Newsom, how have you read the actions of the jury so far in the courtroom, as they are deliberating this case?

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE-NEWSOM, PROSECUTOR: We're encouraged by the jury in this case. They're thoughtful, they are taking their time in going through the charges. I think the fact that they had specific read back yesterday regarding Robert Noel shows that they're moving expeditiously through the charges, and paying close attention to the facts that demonstrate that both of these individuals knew of the dangerous propensities of these dogs, and chose to ignore those warning, and that's why Diane Whipple is dead.

CAFFERTY: All right. I want to address the gay issue in this for a moment. Nedra Ruiz, during your closing earlier this week in the courtroom, you suggested to the jury that the prosecution may have withheld evidence in order to placate the gay community, and that, of course, as expected, caused a bit of a stir. But instead of backing down, you continued along those lines last night. I want to play a little piece of videotape of what you had to say, and then we'll talk about it. Let's listen here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUIZ: After this tragedy occurred, Marjorie and Robert were not arrested because an inspector named Becker (ph) concluded, after talking to the chief medical examiner that it was a tragic accident. Now, as the weeks passed -- in fact, all February, many of Diane Whipple's friends become very concerned that, because she was gay, no prosecution would be undertaken.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAFFERTY: Is this true? I mean, do you really believe that?

RUIZ: Well, I believe that there was a concerted effort in the gay community of San Francisco to bring about prosecution and prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, for -- in behalf of Diane Whipple. Now, that consideration should be apart from this proceeding here. The criminal proceeding here is about justice for Marjorie and Robert, and due process for Marjorie and Robert, not withstanding the political pressure that might have been brought to bear to -- to initiate these proceedings.

This trial is about afforded constitutional rights to two people criminally accused, two people -- Robert and Marjorie, who have never run afoul of the law, who have led legally blameless lives. That is my concern here, and I do not believe, and I never said that -- that anybody hid evidence to placate the gay community. It was my -- what I meant was that the science -- the scientific evidence was not favorable to the government, and so it was never investigated. That's a totally different subject than...

CAFFERTY: Fair enough.

RUIZ: ...the political pressure that may have been brought to bear on the criminal justice system in San Francisco to initiate criminal charges against Robert and Marjorie.

CAFFERTY: All right. Mr. Hammer, after closing arguments were concluded, and I know Ms. Ruiz is seated right next to you there, but you described her defense in this case at "scatter gun," and I just wonder if you would elaborate on that for us.

RUIZ: Well, it is not a personal attack on Ms. Ruiz. I respect her -- whatever tactics she chooses, but I think one of her strategies has been to try to get this jury to focus on anything but her client and her client's responsibility, and this really outrageous allegation that this case is prosecuted differently because Miss Whipple was gay is false, it's offensive. This case is about a woman who was ripped to death in her own hallway on her doorstep by two dogs owned by her neighbors, and that's what we tried to get this jury to focus on. I think that is what they have done.

CAFFERTY: All right. We'll have to wait until they reach a verdict on the fifth and final count. They have decided on four of the five counts. Those verdicts are sealed, pending the outcome of their deliberations on the fifth. Ahead of that, let me thank our guests this morning. Nedra Ruiz, who is the lawyer for the defense, and Jim Hammer and Kimberly Guilfoyle-Newsom, who are prosecutors in the dog mauling trial. I appreciate the three of you joining us this morning. I understand that you are under a partial gag order, so thank you for showing up, and being as frank as you were, and good luck to all of you.

RUIZ: Thank you.

HAMMER: Thank you very much.

NEWSOM: Thank you.

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