There was only one suspect, according to the Atlanta homicide detective who investigated the 1989 murder of public relations executive Connie Vance Krause, found strangled to death in the trunk of her car at the Lindbergh MARTA station.
For 18 months, police zeroed in on the woman’s husband, Hans-Juergen Krause, a former state employee who spent a considerable portion of the couple’s savings at local strip clubs. Extramarital affairs were also alleged, and police suspected Vance Krause was killed the very day she had begun to uncover details of her husband’s secret life.
Amid a media maelstrom clamoring for an arrest, then-Fulton County District Attorney Lewis Slaton refused to budge, insisting there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. Krause, who was never charged criminally, denied any role in his wife’s murder.
Desperate, the Vance family turned to a then-unprecedented legal gambit, suing Hans Krause for murder in a DeKalb County civil court in 1990. It had never happened before in Georgia and, according to the attorneys representing the Vances, hadn’t been attempted elsewhere.
Now, it’s more commonplace. Nine days ago, the brother of Rusty Sneiderman, the Dunwoody entrepreneur gunned down by his wife’s boss outside a day care facility, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against his sister-in-law, Andrea, alleging that she conspired to kill her husband. The Sneiderman family hopes to recoup $2 million in insurance money paid to the widow less than a month after Rusty’s murder at the hands of her former boss, Hemy Neuman.
“There’s been a sea of change as to how people view these kinds of cases,” said Kenneth Canfield, co-counsel for the Vances.
Andrea Sneiderman, who has not been charged in connection to her husband’s death, has maintained her innocence and has vowed to fight the civil suit. She has also sought to limit contact with her in-laws, alleging in a separate visitation dispute that they are not acting in the best interest of her children by claiming she was involved in her husband’s murder.
Neuman, sentenced to life in prison without parole, is also named in the Sneiderman’s suit, which alleges Andrea Sneiderman “utilized her illicit relationship with her co-conspirator [Neuman] to manipulate and influence him to murder Rusty Sneiderman.”
While there are some similarities between the Sneiderman and Krause cases, there are just as many differences. For one, Andrea Sneiderman could still be charged criminally by DeKalb County District Attorney Robert James, who, following Neuman’s conviction, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “We have strong beliefs about Ms. Sneiderman’s involvement. The question is whether or not we can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.”
A civil jury, meanwhile, can find for the plaintiffs based on a preponderance of the evidence — a much less exacting standard than “beyond reasonable doubt.” Also, while a defendant in a civil action can invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, a jury can view a refusal to testify as proof of liability, unlike a criminal trial.
Jurors are also more likely to find against the defendant because the stakes aren’t as high, according to legal experts.
“It’s easier to punish people financially than it is sending them away to prison for the rest of their life,” said University of Georgia law professor Donald E. Wilkes Jr.
On a civil court stage
Twenty-two years ago, those distinctions, while legally established, were largely untested.
“The initial reaction to our suit was skeptical,” said Bob Shields, who, along with Canfield, represented the Vance family. “And the prosecutors were very defensive. They weren’t rooting for us [to succeed].”
Two Georgia laws prevent anyone who commits murder from collecting insurance or estate money. The Vances brought their lawsuit under those statutes.
“The concept that legally anyone could not profit from the death they were responsible for goes back to common law,” Shields said.
Krause’s attorneys argued the suit violated their client’s civil rights.
“It’s patently unfair,” said defense attorney Robert Ray at the time. “What would prevent some jealous relative from filing a lawsuit every time someone was murdered?”
The plaintiffs subpoenaed more than 100 people as potential witnesses, including Atlanta homicide detectives, friends of the Krauses and DeKalb District Attorney Robert E. Wilson, whose office participated in the murder investigation. Wilson was ultimately not called to testify. The sensational witness list also included several nude dancers and a woman with whom Mr. Krause says he had a relationship three weeks after his wife’s body was found Nov. 4, 1989.
The jury ruled for the plaintiffs, preventing Krause from receiving $380,000 in life insurance benefits.
“We didn’t need to decide he really did murder her, “ juror Hedy Edmondson told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “We just needed to decide that he probably did.”
What’ll come out
Jurors said they decided the Krause case entirely on circumstantial evidence. For the moment, such evidence appears to provide the foundation of the Sneiderman’s civil suit.
“Almost everything that could come out has come out,” said attorney Jay Abt, who represents Shayna Citron, Andrea Sneiderman’s former best friend. “I don’t think we’re going to see any smoking guns emerge.”
Andrea Sneiderman’s own words are likely to figure strongly in the plaintiff’s argument. She testified in the Neuman trial that she did not learn that her husband had been shot until she arrived at Atlanta Medical Center. Later, Citron and father-in-law Don Sneiderman both testified that Andrea called and told them Rusty had been shot — before she had arrived at the hospital.
“To me, the biggest piece of evidence remains the timeline,” Abt said. “How can she explain knowing that Rusty was shot when she called Shayna and Don Sneiderman?”
But is it enough? Mere knowledge of a crime is not a prosecutable offense in Georgia, Wilkes Jr. said. But in a civil trial, it could be used to argue that Andrea Sneiderman, as the suit alleges, “actively and knowingly participated in the murder and the planning of the murder.”
“I don’t know if that’s going to be sufficient,” Wilkes Jr. said. “Not by itself. ... It’s certainly suspicious.”
The personal relationship between Andrea Sneiderman and Neuman, first alleged by the GE executive’s then-wife Ariela, is sure to figure prominently in the case against her. Phone records revealed nearly constant communication between the two and, despite additional evidence linking the two romantically, Sneiderman denied ever having an affair with Neuman.
Her lawyers have indicated that Andrea is likely to take the stand in her defense, though DeKalb prosecutors said later that her testimony in the Neuman trial only heightened their suspicions.
“We welcome the opportunity to present the real Andrea Sneiderman,” said John Petrey, who, along with former DeKalb District Attorney J. Tom Morgan and Doug Chalmers, make up the defense team. “Andrea has been portrayed very unfairly in the media to the advantage of others and to the litigation that has been going on so far.”
Among the most interested observers will be DeKalb’s current D.A., James, who was made aware of the civil suit prior to its filing by Steve Sneiderman, the victim’s brother.
“It’s not at all unusual to charge someone after they’ve been party to a civil action,” Wilkes Jr. said. “Prosecutors tend to welcome anything that could bring out the facts of the case.”
James could file charges at any time, pre-empting any civil action. A guilty verdict in a criminal trial would also allow the insurer to reclaim the money dispensed to Andrea Sneiderman after her husband’s death.
DeKalb’s chief prosecutor isn’t tipping his hand. Asked at the press conference following Neuman’s conviction if more charges were forthcoming, James responded: “Stay tuned.”
THE STORY SO FAR
Some key events surrounding the death of Rusty Sneiderman:
Nov. 18, 2010: Rusty Sneiderman is shot multiple times and killed after taking his son to class at Dunwoody Prep day care.
Jan. 4, 2011: Hemy Neuman, who supervised Sneiderman’s wife at GE Energy, is arrested and charged with murder.
Feb. 8, 2011: Neuman is indicted by a DeKalb County grand jury.
March 7, 2011: Neuman’s wife, Ariela, announces she is seeking legal separation from her husband of 22 years.
April 4, 2011: Neuman pleads not guilty to charges he shot and killed Rusty Sneiderman.
June 9, 2011: Sneiderman’s wife, Andrea, says in a statement that she believes Neuman is her husband’s killer and wants to see him convicted.
Sept. 16, 2011: Neuman’s attorneys announce that their client will change his plea to not guilty by reason of insanity.
Oct. 5, 2011: Twelve days before it was set to begin, Neuman’s trial is postponed so that court-appointed psychologists can examine the defendant.
Feb. 13: A jury is chosen to hear the case against Neuman.
Feb. 21: Opening statements are heard in Neuman’s trial, and the prosecution begins presenting evidence.
Feb. 24: The judge bans Andrea Sneiderman from the courtroom for actions that were deemed as intimidating to witnesses.
March 13: The jury begins deliberations.
March 15: After deliberating nearly eight hours over three days, the jury finds Neuman guilty but mentally ill on the count of murder, and guilty on the count of using a firearm during the commission of a felony. The judge sentences Neuman to life in prison without parole on the murder count, and five years in prison on the firearms charge.
May 18: Steve Sneiderman, the brother of Rusty Sneiderman on Friday filed a wrongful death lawsuit against his sister-in-law, alleging that she conspired to kill her husband in front of a Dunwoody day care facility in November 2010.
About the Author
