Jurors in mauling death trial get quizzed on dogs

LOS ANGELES -- Jury selection for the trial of a San Francisco couple in the dog mauling death of a woman will focus on the relationship of people and their animals and whether a pet owner can be found guilty of murder when their dog kills.

A full third of a 24-page selection questionnaire to be distributed to hundreds of prospective jurors from the Los Angeles area concerns their life experiences with dogs.

The death of Diane Whipple in her San Francisco apartment building last year inflamed passions so much there that the trial was moved some 350 miles south to avoid prejudice.

Judge James Warren said during a hearing Wednesday that about 400 prospects would receive the questionnaire Thursday and a like number on Friday. Questioning of jurors will begin Feb. 5 and opening statements on Feb. 19.

The questionnaire asks prospects whether as children they had dogs and what kind, whether they ever had dogs that were aggressive toward people and whether they ever had a dog that needed a muzzle.

"Have you ever had a dog whose intentions you felt people misunderstood?" the questionnaire asks.

Attorneys Robert Noel and Marjorie Knoller, owners of the 125- and 110-pound presa canario dogs involved in the attack, have made public statements accusing the victim of provoking the attacks and portraying their animals as blameless.

Whipple, a 33-year-old college lacrosse coach, was attacked Jan. 26, 2001, as she carried groceries to her Pacific Heights apartment. Knoller, who was walking the dogs, said she was dragged down a hall by one animal. Whipple's larynx was crushed and her neck ripped open.

Deputy District Attorney Jim Hammer declined comment on the facts Wednesday due to a gag order but acknowledged the case could be legally significant.

"There's never been a case in California of a murder conviction for a dog attack," he said.

Knoller is charged with second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and owning a vicious dog that caused harm. She faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted. Noel is charged with manslaughter and lesser charges that could bring up to four years in prison.

Second-degree murder does not require a showing of intent to kill, Hammer said.

"The standard is implied malice ... Did they act in total disregard for human life," he said.

"The legal issue is whether jurors will say that the defendants were taking an extreme risk, kind of like playing with hand grenades," said Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson. "The question is whether there was an extreme indifference to human life."

The judge said he will close a hearing Tuesday to determine what evidence will be admitted because there will be references to, among other things, "sexual relations between individuals and animals" and evidence about prison gangs.