Justices hammered away at the prosecution’s interpretation of attorney-client privilege Tuesday as arguments for and against granting a new trial for Dunwoody day care killer Hemy Neuman were heard in the state Supreme Court.
Lawyers for Neuman — convicted in 2011 of fatally shooting businessman Rusty Sneiderman in the parking lot of his son’s nursery — contend that conversations between their consultants and the former GE Energy executive should not have been allowed into evidence
“The state used these notes to create the impression he wasn’t really suffering from mental illness, that this was an evolving story that grew over time,” said defense attorney J. Scott Key. “There was no basis for the state to subpoena defense consultants who were not scheduled to testify.”
At least two justices appeared sympathetic to that argument, based on the pointed questioning of DeKalb County Chief Assistant District Attorney Anna Cross, who said prosecutors were well within their right to use the jailhouse chats.
“I don’t know why a defense attorney would hire any agent if that was the risk,” Justice David Nahmias said. “Normally, when an attorney hires someone to be their agent … that’s considered to carry the same privilege as if the attorney was speaking with (their client).”
The introduction of those conversations did irreparable damage to Neuman’s defense, Key said.
“Because we used consultants we never intended to testify, because those records were turned over to the state by subpoena, it bolstered the state’s idea that Mr. Neuman was malingering,” he said, adding that the defense wasn’t allowed to rebut that evidence by calling additional experts.
Justices seemed less receptive to the defense’s argument that Neuman’s conviction was secured, in part, by the perjured testimony of Andra Sneiderman, the victim’s widow. The defense contends his alleged affair with Sneiderman triggered his “descent into psychosis.” Sneiderman maintains she was never romantically involved with her former boss at GE.
Cross argued the widow’s testimony was not crucial in securing a conviction.
“Andrea Sneiderman testimony was many things,” she said. “It was dramatic. It was sensational. It was ridiculous. It was challenged. It was contradicted. It was impeached. And, at times, it was mocked.”
Nahmias asked Cross whether the state expected Sneiderman to lie on the stand.
“I believe the state did their best to encourage Mrs. Sneiderman to tell the truth,” Cross said.
Sneiderman was later convicted of giving false statements in her testimony and to law enforcement officers investigating her husband’s November 2010 death.
DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Gregory A. Adams rejected Neuman’s motion for a new trial last March. It could be up to nine months before the Supreme Court renders a decision.
“We’re very encouraged,” Key told reporters. “I’m confident the court understands the breach of attorney-client privilege that took place.”
But, even if the court agrees that the state introduced testimony that should have been privileged, there’s no guarantee a new trial would be granted, said attorney Esther Panitch, who represented Neuman’s ex-wife and the family of victim Rusty Sneiderman.
“They could vote not to give him a new trial because evidence of his guilt was so overwhelming,” Panitch said.
Neuman acknowledged shooting Rusty Sneiderman after changing his plea from not guilty to guilty but insane a few months before his trial.
About the Author
