pack of dogs
Animal Services in Dallas, Texas, euthanized seven dogs after a Dallas woman was killed in a mauling earlier this year. But according to recent forensic DNA tests, the dogs the city executed were not responsible for the attack in question.

In May, 52-year-old Antoinette Brown was killed in a vicious dog attack that included several canines. Though it was unclear which dogs were responsible for the woman's death, neighbors directed authorities toward a residence where pet dogs had reportedly escaped before.

Local outlet WFAA-News 8 reported:

"The residence had a long history of animal complaints, including the seizure of 10 dogs in 2014 and a report of an attack in progress the following year.

"The residence had a long history of animal complaints, including the seizure of 10 dogs in 2014 and a report of an attack in progress the following year.

"The owner of seven dogs suspected in Brown's death turned them over to Dallas Animal Services in the days following the attack. Police said in a bulletin those dogs were 'held for a period of time and were processed for evidence.'"

WFAA reports Dallas Animal Services ultimately killed the dogs.

But on Monday of this week, police reported DNA analysis was unable to link the euthanized dogs to the woman who was killed. As WFAA explained:

"DNA samples collected from the dogs and sent to a forensics institute were negative for a match, police said Monday. A forensics lab at the University of California at Davis also concluded there was no link between the samples collected from the dogs and the DNA found in the attack of Antoinette Brown."

According to the Texas Code of Ordinances, Section 7-5.1, a dog is deemed dangerous if, among other scenarios, it "makes an unprovoked attack on a person that causes bodily injury and occurs in a place other than an enclosure in which the dog was being kept..."

In light of the possibility one of the owner's dogs might have already earned this designation (one was reported in an "attack in progress" last year), the owner might have been entitled to a hearing, pursuant to Section 7-5.6 of the ordinances code.

According to the city government's Public Information Officer, Richard Hill, no hearing took place because "no hearing was required."

Considering DNA evidence only just became available this week - or, at least, was made public this week — it's unclear how authorities would have determined the dogs were guilty prior to receiving the results.

Rather, Hill said the dogs were killed "after they were deemed to be unadoptable." Interestingly, he made no mention of whether or not guilt or innocence was determined and said the dogs were not returned to the owner because the owner surrendered them to authorities (according to the dangerous dog ordinances, had they been found innocent, they would have been returned to the owner).