DA grills Schneider on stand

By MARTI TAYLOR-DN Staff Writer

Tehama County District Attorney Gregg Cohen presented key evidence in his manslaughter prosecution of Charles Dean Schneider Thursday, with the testimony of a forensic expert who testified that the defendant's dogs had a "disposition towards aggressive behavior."

Despite the beginning of the defense's case and the testimony of two key witnesses that included Schneider himself and former Tehama County Sheriff Rob Heard, Cohen made major advances in his goal of obtaining a conviction.

Testimony continued Thursday in Schneider's involuntary manslaughter trial. The 53-year-old former Red Bluff police officer is standing trial for involuntary manslaughter and being the owner of mischievous animals causing death. The charges stem from the 2002 mauling death of Genoe Alonzo Novach, 6, of Red Bluff. It is alleged that two dogs owned by Schneider mauled and killed the boy while he was playing in his Palermo Street neighborhood. Their owner is accused of negligence in that attack.

The third day of the high profile trial of the Schneider was an eventful one with the prosecution calling two veterinarians. One of the veterinarians called was Dr. Richard Polsky of Los Angeles. Polsky testified as an expert in applied animal behavior for the prosecution.

Cohen began questioning the expert regarding his knowledge of the Rottweiler breed in general. "You can't label a Rottweiler inherently aggressive, dangerous or vicious by nature," said Polsky. "But the breed characteristics in combination with other factors can easily make a dog more likely to become a vicious breed."

Cohen then asked his expert to offer his opinion as to the propensity for Schneider's dogs, identified as "Buddy and Pinky" to be aggressive.

"Buddy had a great deal of Rottweiler in him. He was heavily pushed toward a disposition for aggressive behavior because of how he was raised," said Polsky. "There was a lack of training and his genetic heritage that were strong propensities for aggressive behavior."

Polsky later clarified his statements regarding the Rottweiler breed and their need for training and socialization.

"You have to train these dogs (Rottweilers). If you don't train them, they're going to be out of control," said Polsky. "Lack of training will perpetuate and exaggerate greatly propensities for aggressiveness."

There was a bit of drama during Polsky's testimony when the doctor referred to seeing the autopsy photos of young Genoe.

"This was by far the most severe and brutal mauling of a child I have ever seen," said Polsky.

Following Polsky's comments, public defender Thomas J. Hilligan objected and asked that the statement be stricken from the record. Tehama County Superior Court Judge Dennis E. Murray obliged and advised the jury to disregard the statement.

Polsky was also asked to express an opinion on why the dogs mauled Genoe. Polsky responded that in his opinion the dogs were "territorial" and saw the 6-year-old as "easy prey," which led to the "frenzy."

During his cross examination, Hilligan tried to weaken the testimony, asking if evidence that Genoe had taunted the dogs had been taken into consideration in his opinion. The doctor said that he had taken it into consideration and that it did not change his expert opinion.

During and after Polsky's testimony, Cohen hit his legal stride, becoming more sure, confident and aggressive. Following the expert testimony, the prosecution concluded their case.

The defense opened just after the lunch recess and began by calling Schneider to the witness stand. As he took the stand, a hush fell over the courtroom in anticipation of what the defendant would say. Since Genoe's mauling, Schneider has made no public comments regarding the case.

Before Schneider took the stand, Genoe's mother Laura Novach noticeably and abruptly left the courtroom in order to avoid hearing the testimony.

Schneider testified that he came to own the dogs known as Buddy and Pinky from an "unexpected mating" between two of his dogs, a Rottweiler and a pug dachshund mix and that he was unable to find homes for the two dogs. He said he had considered putting the dogs to sleep but had not been financially able to do so.

Schneider also portrayed the two dogs as "shy" but overall friendly, even saying that Pinky would roll over and sometimes sit on his lap.

Hilligan also questioned his client regarding the dog's social interaction. Schneider testified that his step-children would often play with the dogs and that they had "never acted aggressively."

Cohen went after Schneider immediately during his cross examination with a barrage of questions. He began by asking him how much money it would take to repair the fence and called into question Schneider's efforts to do so.

During the questioning, Schneider became visibly agitated and upset, sometimes answering Cohen's questions with conflicting responses.

As the day wore on, the mood in the courtroom became more and more tense. During one portion of Schneider's testimony, a member of the Novach family sarcastically snickered. At hearing this, Hilligan rushed into the audience telling the victim's advocate from the District Attorney's Office to silence the family.

Cohen continued his questioning of Schneider by recounting what other witnesses had said in regard to complaints about his dogs. The defendant said that he had one to two complaints over the years regarding the dogs.

"If I'd have known one tenth of this, those dogs would have been put down," said Schneider.

Several times, Cohen asked if Schneider thought that the testimony of other witnesses had been lies to which the defendant answered yes.

Following the testimony of his client, Hilligan called several juvenile witnesses who had been playmates of Genoe. He also called several friends of Schneider's that testified to having interacted with the dogs in question.

The most notable witness that testified on behalf of Schneider was Heard. The former sheriff took the stand and said that he had interacted with the dogs on numerous occasions and had even played with the dogs. He also testified that he had seen the dogs playing with children on several occasions when they had gotten out.

Cohen briefly cross- examined Heard, implying that the former sheriff was testifying as a favor for a former law enforcement officer.

"Is it true that you're here today to help a fellow law enforcement colleague," asked Cohen.

Heard responded that he was testifying as a result of a subpoena.

The day ended early, following the presentation of all the defense witnesses. The case is expected to continue today with closing arguments by both the prosecution and the defense. It is also expected that the jury could begin deliberations as early as this morning.