It’s certainly possible the court accepted the other assignments of error, such as the admission of the “Aryan Brotherhood” evidence and the hearsay ruling about the letters. If either of those were the basis of the new trial, then jeopardy isn’t a problem.
Nevermind: Here’s the simplest example I can give between acting intentionally (first degree murder), knowingly (second degree murder), and recklessly (manslaughter):
1st Degree: The defendant put a gun against the victim’s forehead and pulled the trigger–no question that D wanted V dead.
2nd Degree: The defendant fired a gun into a crowd, and it didn’t matter whether anybody got killed–D knew one of the people in the crowd was likely to be killed, but didn’t intend that to be the inevitable result.
Manslaughter: The defendant celebrated New Year’s Eve by firing a gun into the air, shooting and killing the person upstairs–D certainly didn’t intend to kill anybody, and didn’t even know that was likely to result from the act, but knew that what he was doing was pretty dangerous.
In your own examples, (1) is first degree because you intended to kill somebody, (2) is at least negligent homicide (a/k/a involuntary manslaugter) and maybe (voluntary) manslaughter, depending on the circumstances, and (3) is negligent homicide. Clearly, Ms. Knoller did not intend the dogs would kill Ms. Whipple, and the evidence was insufficient to show that she even knew death was substantially likely to result from walking the dog. At best, from the evidence I’ve read, she and her husband knew their dogs were pretty darned dangerous and could kill somebody, but kept/trained them anyway, i.e., manslaughter.
The margins are certainly not always well-defined. That’s why they make us take Criminal Law as 1L’s. 
Keep in mind that the specifics vary somewhat from state to state. I have no particular expertise in California criminal standards, although what I’ve read leads me to believe my general descriptions are are applicable here.
Hey, minty - wanna toss in a discussion about transferred intent, just to make things interesting?
Instead of that, how about a hypothetical where a guy shoots a gun out the window of a skyscraper and kills a guy who was falling from 50 stories up?
Minty: Thanx for your response. I know this is like law 101 to you. Lemme see if I have this straight:
Is the essence of what your saying that if the dogs would have killed once already, then killed again, that would be 2nd degree. But because,even though it is a logical deduction that the dogs COULD kill, there still stood the possibility that they WOULDN’T–so it was manslaughter?
Would vs Could vs likely?
The scenerio for second degree in your examples seems to fit more–it’s like the dogs were loaded guns, waiting to ‘go off’.
I watched a good portion of the trial. I’m sure you have more of the details, but it just seems so unlikely that she diddn’t know “death was substantially likely”. It’s like saying, “I figured that the dogs, based on their past behaviour , would bite someone, but how was I to know the person would…oops…die from their injuries.”
I’ve been meaning to ask this for years and you’ve given me the perfect opportunity, Minty
My understanding is that 1st Degree has harsher penalties than 2nd or Manslaughter.
If that’s correct, for heaven’s sake…why?
I’d much rather lock up a psycho who shoots randomly into a crowd than I would someone who hated one specifc person and took them out. I certainly don’t approve of either, but of the two of them, the psycho is worse than the rational one to me.
What’s the rationale for the way it’s done currently?
Thanks!
Fenris
No, not really. The evidence showed that the dogs were hard to control and aggressive. That might show that Ms. Knoller knew somebody could get hurt, but it’s a huge jump from that to knowledge that somebody was substantially certain (like, way more likely than not) to kill somebody when she took it for a walk. The evidence you describe just doesn’t get you to the criminal intent necessary for 2nd degree murder.
Yep, that’s pretty much precisely correct. And remember, it’s the prosecution that has to prove such knowledge. Knowing a dog is aggressive is nowhere near knowing that it’s likely to kill somebody. There have been dozens of dog-mauling deaths in the news in the last decade or two. How many of those cases resulted in murder charges or convictions?
Fenris, it’s simply a judgment call, whether made via common law or (more commonly today) the legislature. The judgment, I guess, is that a person who intentionally kills someone is worse than a person does something knowing that death was likely to result.
Bummer.
That’s an interesting point about “dozens of dog-mauling deaths in the news…” that haven’t “resulted in murder charges”.
Maybe a combo of the media attention and the fact that these were such ugly self-righteous, mean, and just plain warped people contributed. But I suppose also that there were a lot more frequent and severe signs from these dogs (given their breeding, also) than other cases??
It is amazing how many differnet ways things turn out based on interpretation. I for one, in spite of all the info would still love for the conviction to stand. If for no other reason than not wanting to give that demented lawyer of their’s the satisfaction!!
FENRIS: Gotta love those RATIONAL killers!! 
“Your honor, you should cut me a break cause at least I was smart enough to PLAN the murder vs. accidentally killing someone!” Someone who thinks he is JUSTIFIED because of HIS need to take a life, is more dangerous than someone who is foolish or stupid, IMHO.
I don’t want to reopen a can of worms here but the fact that the couple were actually having sex with the animals was not thought to be relevant to the case. Ms. Knoller stated that the male dog initiated the attack by attemting to sniff the woman’s crotch and then attempting to mate with her. The female dog joined in the attack apparently out of jealosy.
I will leave it to someone else to try to explain why a dog that is allowed to mate with humans is being taught that he is dominant and why a dog that feels he is dominant over humans is a very dangerous animal.
This whole case just makes me sick to my stomach.
They were having sex with the dogs?
Holy bestiality, Batman! I have not been paying much attention to the case. Now I am not sure if I am glad or sorry about that.
Please tell me that isn’t so.
Regards,
Shodan