http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/17/dog.mauling.decision/index.html

Do you remember the case of the woman in California (?) who was mauled to death by Robert Noel and Marjorie Knoller's dogs? The above link is a story about Robert Noel's conviction, and they overturned Marjorie Knoller's conviction.

From the article:
Robert Noel was sentenced Monday to four years in state prison for his role in the mauling death of his neighbor by his dogs.

Sentencing for his wife, Marjorie Knoller, was delayed after the judge threw out her second-degree murder conviction. The ruling prompted outcries from the victim's family and friends.

From the stance of the law, I guess I can almost understand this ruling. But from an ordinary human being I think this is just horrible. Is she free and clear now? I don't understand this.

By Ginnyk on Monday, June 17, 2002 - 09:00 pm:

I would guess the issue for the judge was whether the prosecution adequately proved (beyond a reasonable doubt) that she knew that the dog was aggressive and dangerous. I haven't read the article yet, but I have wondered how the prosecution could get a murder conviction rather than reckless endangerment or something similar. I'll read what I can find and maybe comment more.

By Melanie on Monday, June 17, 2002 - 10:20 pm:

I watched part of the verdict today. Basically what the judge had to determine was whether or not Marjorie knew that her dogs were likely going to kill someone. He had no doubt that the couple knew their dogs were vicious and likely going to hurt someone. But did she know that any injuries the dog caused would result in death? I heard him going through the sequence of events but had to leave before he reached the conclusion. Apparently he concluded that it was possible that she didn't know that her dogs would likely kill someone.

She is not free and clear. There are several other charges that she has still been convicted of and can receive up to four years in prison.

Although I have no sympathy for her-she knew her dogs were vicious and even her vet sent a letter saying those dogs should not be in a city situaion because it would not have a good result-I do understand the judges position. There was reasonable doubt in his mind. So he did the only thing he could do.

I do hope she receives the full four years. She had more than enough warning that these dogs would hurt someone. She needs to suffer the consequences.

By Terri0930 on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 05:19 am:

I think there are so many dangerous dogs out there. It seems like the owners should be responsible for their dogs actions. We are for ou children. Dogs need open space to run and should not be kept in closed corners for a long periods of time. If you work and commute 10 to 12 hours a day, how fair is that to that animal and you expect that animal to be happy. There is too much animal abuse in this country.

By Ginnyk on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 10:14 am:

I've read the reports of the case now, and what the judge said is the evidence does not support a verdict of 2nd degree murder. She was, however, convicted of manslaughter, and can serve up to 4 years for that. And don't forget, both of these "people" are lawyers and will be disbarred because of felony convictions, so when they get out of jail they won't be able to earn a living as lawyers, at least.

By Eve on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 12:56 pm:

Did any of you hear the other wild stuff about those dogs and the couple that owned them? My sister was telling me about an article in Rolling Stone that was pretty wild!