Question for an Attorney

Regarding the San Francisco dog mauling case: I was surprised to read that the convictions of Knoller and Noel included both involuntary manslaughter AND second degree murder.


Why would it not have to be one or the other, since one is a more serious charge?

Good question and I don't know the answer, as I don't know about California criminal procedure. I checked a couple of things on the web though since I have not followed the case. The prosecution sought only an indictment for involuntary manslaughter. The grand jury added 2d degree murder. I read the indictment before knowing that and didn't understand why they did it that way. Anyway, the involuntary manslaughter will merge into the 2d degree murder for sentencing I am sure. But if she wins an appeal, the case will not have to be retried I don't think. The usual course is that manslaughter is a lesser included that the jury is only supposed to consider if they acquit on murder. A retrial would be necessary on a reversal then. I would be interested in seeing the jury instructions on the case. But I don't know how California procedure allowed what happened. It has some advantages though. I am also kind of surprised the prosecutors didn't dismiss the indictment for murder if they only sought manslaughter to begin with. California procedure might prevent that. In my state, the prosecutor can dismiss counts from an indictment even if the grand jury wanted them.

Disclaimer: I am not a California attorney and don't think I want to be one. If you make me, I will see to it that Andy Fox is called for jury duty on all my cases. He won't like that and will seek revenge. Thus, I don't want to know too much California law and you can't rely on my opinion about it for any substantive purpose.


Second disclaimer: I also hate doing research. I don't hang in law libraries. So I did about 5 minutes worth to come up with this. I could be wrong.


Now the substance: California Penal Code Section 954 appaers to allow prosecutors to have separate charges in an indictment that reflect different aspects or theories of the same offense. The jury can mix 'n match on acquittals/convictions. This is kind of a cool rule the more I think about it. I might research it further. I still think the merger doctrine applies after conviction and will operate to prevent any double punishments. But if you think I'm going to research the merger doctrine you're nuts. That makes you think.


See if the link below works and you can read some of the rules.

Interesting also was the comment by some Law professor: he thought the defense did a poor job, not even addressing the more serious second degree charge in her closing - thinks the 2nd degree conviction will be reversed.


The couple seem like real scumbags but overall it's amazing to me that a person can be found guilty of 2nd degree murder via his dogs though not even present at the scene ??

Like I said, I didn't follow much of the trial, but nothing I saw about the defense attorney sounded good. The bit of crawling around on the floor was hilarious. Stupid stuff like that is not good trial advocacy, but a lot of lawyers think it is. I don't know why. Not the worst I have heard of or seen by any means though. I will spare you a very detailed account of a defense attorney who did his closing argument on a rape case without pants. The essence of his argument was that the bruises on the victim's thighs were caused by her own fat. The defense attorney was very fat, so he thought it would be a good idea to show the jury his fat bruises on a very private portion of his thighs. Despite his shorts, the jury saw too much. The court reporter saw way too much. I am glad my view was blocked, but I was still traumatized. The English (Canadian too SKP?)system that requires robes and wigs has some merit. The more coverage the better I say.