Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Woman's Lawyer, Prosecutor Discuss Dog Mauling Trial

Aired March 22, 2002 - 8:14   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.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Now onto the big question, as it has been all morning, was it the right verdict? Yesterday a jury found dog owners Marjorie Noller and Robert Noel guilty of various counts of murder. This morning their lawyers are considering their appeals.

The domestic partner of victim Diane Whipple, Sharon Smith, is now bringing a civil suit against the couple.

This morning we're joined by Sharon Smith's lawyer, Michael Cardoza, and along with him, back with us again this morning, prosecutor Jim Hammer, both in San Francisco this morning.

Good morning to both of you.

MICHAEL CARDOZA, SHARON SMITH'S ATTORNEY: Good morning.

WHITFIELD: Well, let's begin with you, Jim. Even outside California, it is likely that this verdict may certainly cause some sweeping changes in laws or legislation across the country. What are you hoping, if anything, is to be gained from this verdict, from this case, what would it be?

JIM HAMMER, PROSECUTOR: Well, the law in California already changed as a result of the horrible death of Diane Whipple.

WHITFIELD: But in other states.

HAMMER: We hope the same thing will happen. I really do believe, because of the attention paid to this case, that people around the country are going to be more careful about their dogs and reporting dangerous dogs and I think that Diane Whipple's death will actually prevent other deaths in the country.

WHITFIELD: This has been an incredibly exhausting period for the family members, for all involved. We heard from Diane Whipple's mother earlier this morning. She says that this has been an incredibly trying case. There were times when she had to step out of the courtroom. The graphic testimony, the graphic photographs. But it seems as though this may just be yet the beginning for this family. They are still pursing a civil suit, a wrongful death suit.

Actually, let me pose this question to you, Michael Cardoza. How is the family expecting to endure yet more hardships as they pursue this wrongful death suit?

CARDOZA: Well, Sharon has gone through an awful lot the last 14 months. I mean she's gone through the loss of her partner, her soul mate. She had to endure, as you say, the trial, which finally culminated yesterday with the right verdict. And now we move, we continue to move with the civil case. I think that's going to be a little less emotional for Sharon, but it will be justice for Sharon.

Jim was able to obtain justice for Diane yesterday and now we move on to justice for Sharon with the civil suit.

WHITFIELD: And what's different in what you have to prove in this case?

CARDOZA: Well, our burden of proof is less than Jim's. Ours is by a preponderance of the evidence. His burden of proof was beyond a reasonable doubt, which was much greater. So I think his case sends a message certainly to the landlord and to his insurance companies that the people in San Francisco, the people in the State of California, the people in Los Angeles are taking this matter very seriously and they don't like what they see in this particular case.

They certainly didn't like Ms. Noller and Mr. Noel and they're not going to like the landlord allowing those dogs into that apartment. I mean it was a small apartment and you had 240 pounds of Presa Canario living there. They weren't trained. Neighbors had complained. So it's going to be an interesting trial.

It will be a difficult trial, but it's going to be interesting and it will be justice for Sharon.

WHITFIELD: And, Jim, back to you this morning. The jury foreman, Don Newton, said that they were convinced that the owners were negligent because they never muzzled the dogs. The dogs were never properly restrained. If it seemed so clear cut to the jurors, why, in your view, does it seem that the neighbors in that community, in that apartment complex, were so reticent and reluctant to speak out, to go to officials about these dogs being so aggressive?

HAMMER: I think there are really two reasons. One is if you look at each incident by itself, it might not seem like, you know, the end of the world, one bark or one lunge or one bite. And the other reason is, as some of the witnesses testified, these defendants were so despicable, frankly, where people were intimidated by them and afraid of these lawyers with their huge vicious dogs that people wanted nothing to do with them and avoided any contact. Some people even moved out of the building because of them.

WHITFIELD: And, Michael, what's the time line now as they pursue, as the family members pursue this civil suit, this wrongful death suit?

CARDOZA: Well, the suit, we began discovery a while back so we'll continue discovery. You're probably looking at another 10 months.

WHITFIELD: OK. And the sentencing has yet to take place in yesterday's verdicts. That is early May, is that correct, Jim?

HAMMER: May 10, that's right.

WHITFIELD: OK.

All right, thanks very much, Jim. Thanks very much, Jim, as well as machine. Thanks for joining us this morning.

HAMMER: Thanks, Fredricka.

CARDOZA: Thank you.

HAMMER: 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