Lawyer says she may have blown it
Henry K. Lee,
Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday,
April 13, 2002
©2002 San Francisco
Chronicle
San Francisco -- Marjorie Knoller's former defense attorney acknowledged yesterday that she may have made mistakes in the dog-mauling trial that ended with the convictions of Knoller and her husband, verdicts she said the jury should never have reached.
Nedra Ruiz said she supported Knoller's decision to replace her with Dennis Riordan, a San Francisco lawyer and a veteran of more than 100 murder case appeals.
Although she is no longer on the case, Ruiz said she would help Riordan in a research capacity as he seeks a new trial, most likely on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to convict the 46-year-old Knoller of second- degree murder.
"She had no knowledge whatsoever that these dogs were liable to kill or seriously injure anyone," Ruiz said after a hearing in San Francisco Superior Court, where a judge granted a defense motion to delay the couple's sentencing until June. "Ms. Knoller needs a new trial. Marjorie is innocent."
Ruiz conceded that she might have made mistakes during the five-week trial in Los Angeles, although she wouldn't specify what those mistakes might have been.
"If I made mistakes, I'm happy to admit them -- and, as a matter of fact, considering how insufficient the evidence was, I have to think that perhaps my mistakes contributed to this terrible, terrible unjust verdict," Ruiz said.
"Perhaps my mistakes contributed to a false understanding of the evidence," she said.
Knoller and her husband, Robert Noel, were convicted March 21 in the death of Diane Whipple, 33, a St. Mary's College lacrosse coach who suffered bite wounds all over her body when she was attacked by the couple's 120-pound Presa Canario named Bane.
Knoller was convicted of second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and keeping a mischievous dog that kills. She faces 15 years to life in prison.
Noel, 60, was convicted of the involuntary manslaughter and mischievous-dog charges, and could be sentenced to four years. He was represented by attorney Bruce Hotchkiss, who will remain on the case.
Ruiz gained attention for her theatrics during the trial, including shouting, kicking the jury box and waving her arms. During opening statements, Ruiz got down on all fours to re-enact what she described as Knoller's attempts to protect Whipple from the attack in her San Francisco apartment building Jan. 26, 2001.
Ruiz's comments yesterday came after a hearing before Superior Court Judge James Warren, who agreed to delay Knoller's sentencing from May 10 until June 7 and gave Riordan until May 24 to file a motion to seek a new trial. Noel's sentencing was also delayed.
Warren noted that the case was "unprecedented." Knoller was the first person in California history to be convicted of murder in a dog attack.
The judge also approved the replacement of Ruiz with Riordan, along with attorneys Dylan Schaffer and Donald Horgan. Riordan said in court papers that he had been contacted by Knoller's parents, David and Harriet Knoller, four days after Knoller and her husband were convicted.
Outside court yesterday, Harriet Knoller walked up to the lead prosecutor in the case against her daughter, James Hammer, and shook his hand.
In court yesterday, Riordan tiptoed around the issue of whether Ruiz had adequately defended Knoller, saying he "honestly had no preconception" and would have to read the trial transcripts.
Riordan, who was unavailable for comment after the hearing, has said in court papers that he wanted to make sure the convictions were not flawed by legal error or unsupported by evidence.
Hammer and co-prosecutor Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom said they believed the convictions would stand.
"We feel confident that we will prevail," Guilfoyle Newsom said.
"It's unfortunate that Ms. Ruiz has attacked the jury and their verdict," Hammer said. "It was an incredibly fair trial. I think Judge Warren bent over backward to keep out most of the inflammatory evidence in this case."
In an interview with The Chronicle the day of the verdicts, Riordan said he could not understand how a jury could convict Knoller of both involuntary manslaughter and second-degree murder. He noted a 1986 California Supreme Court decision saying a court can't accept a guilty verdict for a lesser crime unless it acquits the defendant of the more serious one.
E-mail Henry K. Lee at hlee@sfchronicle.com.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/04/10/BA161543.DTL
Knoller picks new attorney for appeal Flamboyant trial
lawyer Ruiz replaced by veteran Riordan
Jaxon Van Derbeken,
Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday,
April 10, 2002
©2002 San Francisco
Chronicle
San Francisco -- Facing 15 years to life for second-degree murder in the dog-mauling death of Diane Whipple, Marjorie Knoller has replaced the defense attorney who shouted, waved her arms and got down on all fours in a vain attempt to persuade a jury to acquit her.
Knoller replaced trial attorney Nedra Ruiz with Dennis Riordan, a San Francisco lawyer and a veteran of more than 100 murder case appeals. He will appear Friday before Judge James Warren in San Francisco Superior Court to seek a delay of next month's sentencing of Knoller.
Ruiz's colleague and office partner, J. Tony Serra, said yesterday that Ruiz had consulted with Knoller and that both agreed Riordan should be brought in before sentencing.
"This was Nedra's desire," Serra said. "We contacted Dennis Riordan -- he is the best appellate lawyer in the West. This was a joint effort of all parties to bring the best appellate case possible."
Riordan said in court papers that he had been contacted by Knoller's parents, David and Harriet Knoller, four days after Knoller and her husband, Robert Noel, were convicted. Marjorie Knoller declined to be interviewed yesterday.
Ruiz has not commented publicly since a Los Angeles jury convicted Knoller on March 21 of murder, involuntary manslaughter and keeping a mischievous dog that kills. Serra said after the verdicts that Ruiz was depressed and didn't want to talk to reporters.
Ruiz cut a colorful swath through the five-week trial. In her opening statements, she kicked the jury box, yelled and got down on her hands and knees to re-enact what she described as Knoller's attempts to protect Whipple from the dog attack that killed her in her San Francisco apartment building on Jan. 26, 2001.
While cross-examining Whipple's partner, Sharon Smith, Ruiz suggested that Whipple might still be alive had either woman complained before the fatal attack about the two Presa Canario dogs that Knoller and Noel kept in their unit.
Ruiz's performance raised eyebrows among some attorneys, but jurors interviewed afterward said she came off as a committed and dramatic, if somewhat scattered, advocate who did the best she could. They reserved their harshest comments for Knoller, 46, whose testimony one juror characterized as "fabricated."
The jury also convicted Noel, 60, of the involuntary manslaughter and mischievous-dog charges. He was represented by attorney Bruce Hotchkiss.
The couple are to be sentenced May 10 in San Francisco, but Riordan filed a motion Monday to delay Knoller's sentencing until June to give him time to prepare a motion to seek a new trial.
James Hammer, the lead prosecutor in the case, said he would fight any defense attempt at delay.
Riordan, who was out of town yesterday, said in his motion that he intended to raise claims that errors by the judge or others might have influenced the outcome of the case.
"Before Ms. Knoller is finally sentenced, potentially to spend the remainder of her life in prison, this court should assure itself that her convictions are not flawed by legal error or unsupported by adequate evidence, " Riordan said in court papers.
In an interview with The Chronicle the day of the verdicts, Riordan said he could not understand how a jury could convict Knoller of both involuntary manslaughter and second-degree murder, instead of choosing one or the other.
He noted a 1986 California Supreme Court decision saying a court can't accept a guilty verdict for a lesser crime unless it acquits the defendant of the more serious one.
"There's a good argument that under recent law the verdicts could be considered illegal," Riordan said. "The court should have said, 'You can't give me both.' "
Chronicle staff writer Jim Herron Zamora contributed to this report. / E-mail Jaxon Van Derbeken at jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/22/MN56689.DTL
Appeals to test pair's mauling convictions
Plenty of fodder
for defense, say legal experts
Harriet Chiang, Chronicle Legal Affairs
Writer
Friday, March 22, 2002
©2002 San Francisco
Chronicle
The guilty verdicts are in. Now on to the appeals.
Facing lengthy sentences behind bars, Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel are likely to raise a host of issues in hopes of overturning, at the very least, Knoller's conviction for second-degree murder in connection with Diane Whipple's death.
Questionable calls by the judge, ineffective assistance by Knoller's lawyer and prejudicial evidence involving the couple's ties to the Aryan Brotherhood are likely to be the primary defense arguments, veteran lawyers said yesterday.
"It's almost a buffet of appellate issues that are present in this case," said Bill Fazio, a defense lawyer and former San Francisco prosecutor.
Veteran trial lawyers say that the murder count against Knoller is the most vulnerable of the convictions and that her lawyers are likely to focus their attack on whether there was enough evidence to show that she had the necessary "implied malice."
"I don't think there's sufficient evidence of malice to sustain that element of the offense," said Joseph Russoniello, former U.S. attorney for Northern California and now dean of San Francisco Law School. He predicted the murder conviction will be overturned on appeal.
But other lawyers say the conviction is likely to stick because second- degree murder is vaguely defined, leaving it up to the jury to make the call.
Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff compared Knoller's murder conviction to a drunken driver killing someone. A few decades ago, that would have been manslaughter -- but now it qualifies as murder because the person created a situation that was likely to result in death.
"I think the second-degree murder will stand," Orloff said.
Some lawyers questioned several of Judge James Warren's rulings that went against the defense.
In a preview of what is likely to be part of the appeal, Knoller's attorney,
Nedra Ruiz, complained that Warren should not have allowed prosecutors to use as evidence the couple's ties to the Aryan Brotherhood. Several criminal defense lawyers agreed.
"It's really impermissible character evidence," said defense attorney James Collins of San Francisco. "It's so prejudicial, and it had no relevance to the case whatsoever."
Lawyers who followed the news accounts were also puzzled by several other rulings, such as the judge's decision to allow into evidence Noel's letters and other material that they said appeared to be inadmissible hearsay. That included statements that Whipple's partner, Sharon Smith, said Whipple made regarding her fear of the dogs in the weeks before the fatal attack.
They also questioned him for threatening to throw Ruiz in jail for objecting during prosecutor James Hammer's closing argument.
"Lawyers object in closing arguments all the time," Fazio said. "There's nothing wrong with that."
The defendants also are likely to challenge the verdicts on the other criminal counts.
San Francisco lawyer Dennis Riordan, a veteran criminal appellate specialist, said he could not understand how a jury could convict Knoller of both involuntary manslaughter and second-degree murder, instead of choosing one or the other.
He noted a 1986 California Supreme Court decision saying a court can't accept a guilty verdict for a lesser crime unless it acquits the defendant of the more serious one.
"There's a good argument that under recent law the verdicts could be considered illegal," Riordan said. "The court should have said, 'You can't give me both.' "
Other lawyers agreed that it is unusual for a jury to convict a defendant of both charges. Typically, a defendant will be charged only with murder, and then the jury will be instructed that it can return a conviction on a lesser offense. In Knoller's case, a grand jury took the unusual step of indicting her for both involuntary manslaughter and second-degree murder.
Despite the odd result, most other lawyers said that the two guilty verdicts were not a basis for reversal and that Knoller would be sentenced only for the murder conviction.
Knoller and Noel will probably get new lawyers to handle their appeals and raise, among other things, the performance of their trial lawyers.
In this case, the appellate lawyers may argue that Ruiz provided ineffective counsel by resorting to histrionics and inflaming the jury, said Rory Little, a former federal prosecutor and criminal law professor at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law.
"It's an argument," he said. "But is it a viable argument?"
Lawyers were reluctant to publicly criticize Ruiz's performance. Even though they may not have cared for her emotionally wrought style of advocacy, they said they didn't know of any glaring mistakes she made that would warrant an appeals court overturning Knoller's convictions.
"She was different," Orloff said. "I wouldn't say bad."
E-mail the writer at hchiang@sfchronicle.com.
Close Window to Return to TBC Web Site