It has been nearly 15 years since the nation was riveted by the tragic story of a Saint Mary’s College women’s lacrosse coach who was fatally mauled by two Presa Canario dogs in a San Francisco apartment building.

But the saga is not yet complete.

On Monday, a federal appeals court will hear Marjorie Knoller’s latest attempt to overturn her unique second-degree murder conviction for the 2001 death of her neighbor, 33-year-old Diane Whipple, who was attacked by two dogs named Bane and Hera.

Knoller, serving a 15-years-to-life term in the California Institute for Women in Corona, has urged the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to order a new trial, arguing that her original 2002 trial was tainted by serious legal flaws. The appeal centers on several key issues, including the claim the trial judge muzzled her defense lawyer and then allowed the prosecutor to inflame the jury in closing arguments with remarks ordinarily barred from trials.

“There has never been a weaker murder case (of this kind) prosecuted in this state,” Knoller’s lawyers told the 9th Circuit in court papers.

Knoller, whose legal fight has twisted for more than a decade through various courts, faces an uphill climb. The California Supreme Court and a Bay Area federal judge have already rejected the arguments.

But the appeal revisits one of the most notorious incidents in recent Northern California history. Knoller’s trial, along with that of her husband and fellow lawyer Robert Noel, was moved to Los Angeles because of the extensive pretrial publicity.

Knoller and Noel were prosecuted because they failed to take steps to prevent the dogs’ attack on Whipple in the hallway of their apartment building, where she ultimately bled to death from dozens of wounds. Noel, convicted of involuntary manslaughter, served his prison time and has already been released on parole.

But Knoller bore the brunt of the charges, blamed for failing to muzzle the dogs — which the couple was taking care of for two former clients imprisoned at Pelican Bay State Prison — despite knowing of their potential dangerousness when she took them out in the apartment building. When Knoller was sentenced, a San Francisco judge noted her lack of remorse and failure to take action while Whipple was under attack as reasons for the potential life prison term.

Sharon Smith, Whipple’s partner, successfully sued Knoller and Noel after the criminal trial, securing $1.5 million in damages.

Knoller’s legal team, led by Dennis Riordan, one of California’s top appellate lawyers, now argue that the case should never have been prosecuted as a murder. In fact, fatal dog maulings are rare, and murder prosecutions are even more scarce — there have been only several in the nation in recent memory, including one in Los Angeles in 2013.

Riordan declined comment on the appeal. But in court papers, he argues the trial was unfair, particularly in light of the “white-hot public hostility towards the accused.”

In particular, the legal argument relies on the fact the trial judge eventually warned Knoller’s lawyer she could no longer object to concerns about the prosecutor’s arguments, even threatening her with jail, and then allowed then-San Francisco prosecutor James Hammer to ask the jury to imagine Whipple’s death, “to re-create Diane’s Whipple’s time in the hallway.”

“(The prosecutor) was then free to engage in a … grossly prejudicial violation of the universally recognized “Golden Rule” forbidding pleas to jurors to put themselves in the shoes of the victim,” Knoller’s lawyers wrote.

Hammer, now a private lawyer and frequent legal commentator, could not be reached for comment. But the California attorney general’s office, which is defending the conviction, argues there were no trial errors that improperly influenced the jury’s verdict.

“The error was harmless under the circumstances and in light of the strong evidence of guilt,” the state’s lawyers told the 9th Circuit.

Howard Mintz covers legal affairs. Contact him at 408-286-0236 or follow him at Twitter.com/hmintz