A judge reversed a historic jury decision Monday by overturning the second-degree murder conviction of a San Francisco lawyer whose dog fatally mauled her neighbor.

Judge James Warren, who presided over the trial of Marjorie Knoller and her husband, Robert Noel, said the evidence overwhelmingly proved manslaughter but did not show Knoller knew her two dogs would fatally attack neighbor Diane Whipple — and therefore did not qualify as second-degree murder.

The March 21 guilty verdict against Knoller was the first murder conviction for a dog attack in California and one of only a few others across the country.

Whipple, who lived down the hall from the couple, was entering her apartment with groceries when the two Presa Canarios attacked her on Jan. 26, 2001. One of the dogs, Bane, was blamed for the fatal neck wound.

"This does not in any way excuse or change the horror of what happened ... This does not minimize or excuse the despicable conduct of the defendants," Warren said. "I don't believe there is anybody in San Francisco who would rather not see Ms. Knoller go to prison for second-degree murder."

Warren rejected the couple's bid for a new trial on lesser charges, allowing guilty verdicts to stand for involuntary manslaughter and owning a mischievous animal.

Had her new trial bid been rejected, Knoller would have been sentenced Monday to a mandatory term of 15 years to life in prison. Instead, she faces up to four years for involuntary manslaughter when sentenced on July 15. Noel was sentenced Monday afternoon to the maximum of four years in prison.

Prosecutors — including San Francisco District Attorney Terrance Hallinan — voiced their vehement opposition to Warren's new trial decision and said in court that they plan to argue a motion for reconsideration before Knoller's sentencing hearing.

"[The] grand jury chose murder for that woman over there, and 12 jurors said they were right, and you took it away," said lead prosecutor James Hammer in addressing the court. "Every homicide is a tragedy. Few are as preventable as this one."

Whipple's loved ones also expressed outrage and shock at the judge's decision while addressing the court from the jury box during victim's impact statements.

"I want to understand how a grand jury and a jury down in L.A. that is unbiased say second-degree murder, and then you take it away," said a tearful Sara Miller, Whipple's close friend. The case was tried in Los Angeles, where the jury pool was thought to be less influenced by media coverage of the case. "What is the point of having a jury trial?" Miller asked.

Also speaking out against the decision was Sharon Smith, Whipple's domestic partner of seven years. Smith made legal strides when she won the right to file a wrongful death suit for a lesbian partner.

Sharon Smith speaks to the judge Monday.

"I just stood up from a juror's chair and I'm wondering what value that seat really has," said Smith, who spoke from the jury box.

"No amount of time in prison feels appropriate for your actions that night, and the way you lived your life," Smith said, addressing Knoller and Noel. "Frankly I am shocked we are discussing manslaughter, not murder."

Despite granting Knoller a victory, Warren had harsh words for Noel and Knoller during the proceeding. Warren called the defendants "the most despised couple in San Francisco" and called their actions "despicable."

"They brushed off everything. They thumbed their nose at everything," he said, recounting statements the defendants made following Whipple's death in which they not only claimed no responsibility, but blamed the victim for the attack.

Warren said he believed dozens of state witnesses who testified that the dogs demonstrated vicious behavior, and scoffed at the defense's claims that they did not think the dogs were dangerous. He also said he believed the prosecution's theory presented at trial that the dogs were being raised as "big, massive, dangerous, fighting dogs" on behalf of members of a white supremacist prison gang.

"I defy either defendant to stand up and tell me that they had no idea that those dogs were going to hurt somebody someday," the judge said.

But while he accused Knoller of lying on the stand when she testified in her own defense, Warren said he believed that the evidence fell short of proving that Knoller knew the dogs were capable of killing Whipple.

"There was one time on the stand, Ms. Knoller, when I believed what you said. You said you had no idea this dog could do what he did. I believed you," Warren said. "It was the only time, but I believed you."

To prove second-degree murder, jurors had to find that there was evidence of implied malice — that Knoller had reasonable knowledge that the dog was capable of a fatal attack but took no steps to prevent it.

"The court finds that the evidence does not support it," Warren said.

Warren also raised concerns that Noel, who was out of town during the attack, was charged with involuntary manslaughter instead of murder.

"In this court's view, Mr. Noel was more culpable than she was," Warren said.

Though Noel kept his eyes fixed on papers and took notes through much of Monday's events, only peering above the frames of his glasses occasionally to look up at the judge, he glared toward the bench while Warren meted out his sentence.

Warren had the discretion to give Noel a sentence as lenient as probation, but instead opted for the maximum term citing aggravating factors such as the defendant's apparent lack of remorse. The judge also determined that Noel lied in his testimony to the grand jury regarding the behavior of his dogs, adding another aggravating circumstance.

While the other charge — possessing a mischievous animal — is punishable by up to three years in prison, no time could be tacked on to Noel's sentence since both convictions resulted from the same act.

With time already served and credit for good behavior, Noel could be out of prison in about two years.