Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Ten-Year-Old Fatally Attacked by Rottweilers

Aired March 22, 2002 - 09:02   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: On to Wisconsin now, and a case that bears a disturbing resemblance to the California dog mauling. Ten-year-old Alicia Lynn Clark was at a girlfriend's house on Valentine's Day when she was fatally attacked by rottweilers. The dogs' owners, Wayne Hardy and Shanna McCracken, were not home at the time, but they have been charged with several crimes, including homicide resulting from a vicious animal, reckless endangerment and child neglect, charges that could bring long prison terms.

Daniel Berkos is the defense attorney for the Hardys, and he joins us now this morning from Vail, Colorado.

Attorney for both Hardy and McCracken, correct?

DANIEL BERKOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, just for Mr. Hardy.

WHITFIELD: OK, for Mr. Hardy.

Thanks very much. Thanks for joining us.

Now as I understand the facts to be, 10-year-old Alicia was visiting a friend's house. She proceeded to pet one of six puppies, correct, of the rottweilers. Apparently, one of the adult rottweiler got very upset with it and began attacking her. What do you know the facts to be thereafter?

BERKOS: Well, we don't really know exactly what the caused attack to take place, but what we do know is that there were four puppies and two adult dogs there, and Alicia was there with her girlfriend, Melissa, who lives in the house.

And for some reason unknown to even the prosecutor at this point, one or more of the dogs attacked Alicia, which ended up in her death.

WHITFIELD: And I understand Melissa, the 11-year-old, even told investigators that she encouraged little Alicia not to scream, because that's how she had been instructed by her dad, apparently not to scream in front of the dogs. This seems to be screaming of the knowledge that these owners, dog owners had, that these dogs were very aggressive and potentially dangerous. How do you defend Mr. Hardy with the knowledge that these dogs were dangerous?

BERKOS: Well, Fredricka, first of all, we don't agree that she was taught to do anything of that nature. That's alleged in the complaint. And quite frankly, that's the first time I'm advised of that those statements being made. The way we defend this case by the track record of Mr. Hardy and these dogs. He has owned one of the dogs for three years, one for a year, and the other ones for a year, and the puppies for about seven or eight months. There has not been one witness that has ever come forward to say that these dogs have ever done anything which would be considered aggressive or dangerous to anybody.

And, in fact, the 11-year-old daughter would walk the dogs from time to time. She he was able to handle them. She was able to direct them with commands. There's been no evidence simply to show that these dogs had ever been dangerous to anybody at all, much unlike the California case, where you had 30 people complaining of various times where the dogs either lunged am them or something of that nature.

WHITFIELD: And the case in California, as you know bring it up, squarely hinged on the fact that the owners were reticent about doing anything about the dogs, even though there had been complaints about the dogs, at least complaints within the apartment complex in which they all lived. The jurors there agreed that the owners should pay for the crime. That is likely to be the case. The prosecutors are pursuing the same sort of result in your case. How then will you try to defend your clients that perhaps they were not reticent, they were knowledgeable of the potentially aggressive behavior of the dogs?

BERKOS: Well, in order to be required to do something, you have to be aware of the facts. In California, they knew the dogs were vicious or had propensities for that. Therefore, they had some obligation. It's no different than if you leave a loaded gun on the table for children to play with, the odds are somebody is going to get hurt. In my case, there is nothing that happened with these dogs at anytime in their history that would lead my client or anybody to believe these dogs were violent or vicious in any manner.

In fact, we don't know whether it was just one dog or more. The bottom line is the prosecutor has to be able to establish that. I don't disagree with the principle that if you know the dog is violent and vicious, that you have an obligation to prevent injury to others. It's no different than any other part of our legal system. But in order to be responsible for that, you have to know that the dog had that propensity.

You know, if you held people to that standard every time someone poodle nipped at somebody, that should theoretically put people on warning that that poodle is vicious. Now I don't think that's what the law requires.

WHITFIELD: Daniel Berkos, defense attorney for Wayne Hardy and Shanna McCracken, also facing these charges as it relates to their dog that led to the death of a 10-year-old girl.

Thanks for joining from Veil, Colorado, even though the case is in Wisconsin.

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