LOS ANGELES (Court TV) — Two dogs who mauled a California woman to death were more dangerous than a loaded gun — and their owners knew it but did nothing, according to the prosecutor who asked a jury to convict the couple Monday.

In closing arguments in the trial of married lawyers Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel, prosecutor James Hammer portrayed the couple as liars who knew their two Presa Canarios could be deadly and later tried to shirk responsibility for the death of their neighbor, Diane Whipple, on Jan. 26, 2001.

"At least with a gun you have to pull the trigger. These dogs can go off on their own, over and over and over again," Hammer said.

Victim Diane Whipple

The defense contends that the attack on the couple's neighbor, Ms. Whipple, was a tragic accident, and that Knoller, who was present during the mauling, tried her best to help her neighbor. Calling the dogs "family pets," defense lawyer Bruce Hotchkiss argued that the attack was unforeseeable.

"Nobody could expect it," he told jurors. It was his clients' eccentricities, not their actions, that made them the target of the district attorney's office, Hotchkiss argued.

Citing testimony from dozens of witnesses who had run-ins with the dogs, a letter from a vet and even the defendants' own words, the prosecutor argued Monday that the couple knew that their dogs could be dangerous.

"You don't get a free mauling," Hammer said, asking the jury to convict Noel of manslaughter and Knoller of second-degree murder. "They knew with their own eyes what these dogs could do. They read about it, they heard about it. "They willfully ignored it, arrogantly."

Defendant Marjorie Knoller with her lawyer, Nedra Ruiz

Hammer also went after the defendant's credibility, especially Knoller who took the stand in her own defense — beginning her testimony by breaking down in tears and saying she felt terrible for Whipple's loved ones. But Hammer charged that Knoller was putting on an act in a play for sympathy.

"That woman over there, Ms. Knoller, went on national television and there's not a tear in her eyes," he said, referring to an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" shortly after the attack, in which she was asked whether she felt at all responsible for Whipple's death. "As cold as ice she said 'No, she should have closed her door — that's what I would have done,'" Hammer said.

Knoller's lawyer, Nedra Ruiz, countered Hammer's accusations that Knoller is a liar, saying that any inconsistencies between her grand jury and trial testimony are merely a result of confusion.

"Because of the shock, because of the horror she endured trying to save Diane Whipple's life, she couldn't recall every single bite," she said.

"She was traumatized, she was dragged through blood, she was dragged down the hallway," Ruiz argued. "I think Marjorie had a reason to be a little confused."

Ruiz — who cried and even crawled on the floor to illustrate knoller's version of events during her opening statement — screamed dramatically at times into a microphone as she delivered her closing argument.

She accused Hammer, who is openly homosexual, of hiding evidence in an attempt to "curry favor with homosexual and gay folks" demanding justice for Diane Whipple, who was a lesbian. Whipple's partner, Sharon Smith, made headlines when she successfully won the right to file a wrongful death suit for Whipple's death, a right that was previously reserved for legal spouses and immediate family.

Prosecutor James Hammer

Hammer, whose remarks came immediately following the judge's instructions to the jury on the law, outlined what degrees of negligence the jury would have to find to convict the pair of raising vicious dogs, involuntary manslaughter — and for Knoller, second-degree murder.

While involuntary manslaughter requires a finding of criminal negligence, or a blatant disregard for human life, the jury would have to find that Knoller acted with a knowledge of the potential for danger but did not take proper precautions. None of the charges requires that either of the defendants had an intent to kill.

"A simple muzzle that day keeps Diane Whipple alive," he said.

Hammer summarized testimony from dozens of witnesses who said they had previous run-ins with the dogs and their owners, who were bitten, lunged at by the canines — and some even cursed at by Noel when they asked him to restrain the dogs, Bane and Hera.

"The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible they knew they couldn't control the dogs. They knew how powerful the dogs were and how aggressive they were," the prosecutor to the panel.

"What makes it sick though, and I say sick...who would have thought that one of them would write a letter mocking the woman two weeks before she died?" said Hammer, alluding a letter Noel wrote to inmate Paul "Cornfed" Schneider.

Defense lawyer Bruce Hotchkiss

In the letter to Schneider, a 38-year-old lifer whom Noel and Knoller later adopted, Noel wrote that Whipple was a "timorous mousy blonde" who almost had a heart attack when the dog showed a "passing interest." The couple was raising the dogs as part of a killer dog breeding scheme masterminded by Schneider, the prosecutor contended.

Hammer also alluded to Noel's grand jury testimony, in which he admitted on the stand that he didn't particularly care about Whipple's fear of the dogs. Though Noel elected to testify before the grand jury, he declined to take the stand in his own defense during this trial.

He said that Noel's defense, which defense lawyer Bruce Hotchkiss alluded to during opening statements — that Noel was out of town the day of the attack — does not clear him of responsibility.

"Mr. Noel knew perfectly well what could happen when he left that day," he said, saying that both defendants knew that Knoller couldn't handle the powerful dogs alone and that even the burly Noel had trouble himself, nearly having his fingered severed by one of his pets.

Hotchkiss argued that his client was targeted by the prosecution.

"Things came out about Mr. Noel that upset people," he said, alluding to Noel's close relationship with Schneider and statements he made about Whipple in letters to Schneider and to the district attorney's office.

"It's a case full of passion and prejudice," he said. "You saw a lot of passion here this morning and the reason you saw a lot of passion is because that's all there is to this criminal case."

Hammer also chided claims by defense lawyer Nedra Ruiz that Knoller acted heroically at the scene.

"It's offensive to call yourself a hero when you abandoned a woman to die and you never called 911," he said.

The prosecution displayed graphic photographs of Whipple's 77 wounds on a wide screen and contrasted them with photos of Knoller's injuries — two cuts on her fingers that didn't require stitches.

"My mother gets worse wounds gardening," Hammer said. "Compare those to what happened to Diane Whipple."

Hammer also criticized defense claims that the incident was a tragic accident and dismissed testimony from defense witnesses who said they had friendly interactions with the dogs.

"Ten happy dog incidents don't erase a single warning or a single lunge," he said.

Like Hammer, Hotchkiss and Ruiz each have up to three hours to present their closing arguments before Hammer will have an opportunity for a rebuttal. Judge James Warren told the jury that they will begin deliberations Tuesday.