Andrea Sneiderman Is Taking a Huge Risk by Going to Trial

by Patrick H. Moore

The day is finally here and opening statements in what is now the Andrea Sneiderman perjury trial will be heard. As anyone who has been following this case knows, there have been dramatic twists and turns in these proceedings including the recent dismissal of the murder charges against Sneiderman. Although she and her team seem confident that she will be acquitted of the remaining charges, I can’t help but think that she is taking a huge risk by going to trial, especially when one considers that she was offered a “sweetheart” plea deal — thought to be for one year — which she turned down. Let’s review the facts of this fascinating case:

Sneiderman’s 36-year-old Harvard-educated entrepreneurial husband was shot and killed in November of 2010 shortly after dropping off the couple’s 2-year-old son at his preschool in Dunwoody, Georgia, a suburb north of Atlanta. Sneiderman was arrested in August of 2012 after prosecutors accused her of helping to orchestrate the murder of her husband and was under house arrest for much of last year. She was charged with one count each of malice murder, felony murder and aggravated assault, as well as one count each of hindering the apprehension of a criminal and concealment of material facts, four counts of making false statements and seven counts of perjury.

The actual shooter, Hemy Neuman, a Georgia Tech graduate and father of three, was Andrea Sneiderman’s boss. He was arrested six weeks after Sneiderman. In March 2012, a jury found Neuman guilty with the caveat that he is mentally ill.

The big surprise came on July 26th on the eve of jury selection. DeKalb County District Attorney Robert James took the somewhat unprecedented step of asking the judge to dismiss the murder and aggravated assault charges. In what is confusing to me, James cited his recent review of pre-trial discovery evidence turned over by the defense as the reason for dropping the charges.

Unsurprisingly, Thomas Clegg, one of Sneiderman’s lead attorneys, rejected the prosecution’s explanation, stating in open court:

“I believe they have known all along that they didn’t have a murder case.”

The judge granted James’ request and released Sneiderman from house arrest.

Although the prosecution’s last minute decision came as a shock to many, University of Georgia law professor Ron Carlson explains that prosecutors are increasingly mindful of over-charging, particularly in light of recent high-profile cases — including the George Zimmerman trial — where defense attorneys have been able to overcome any pre-conceived notion of guilt.

“If you’ve got an over-the-top charge that’s difficult to prove that the jury is not convinced about, they’re sometimes quite likely to go right down the scale and reject everything, so prosecutors want to be discriminating and intelligent about the charges they bring,” said Carlson.

What We Are Left With:

The big issue now is whether Sneiderman lied to police during the investigation and to the court during Neuman’s trial. There are two key questions:

• Was Sneiderman involved in a romantic relationship with Neuman? Throughout the proceedings, Sneiderman has steadfastly denied that she was ever romantically involved with the convicted killer. She has acknowledged that he was certainly infatuated with her and pursued her energetically. (The prosecutors initially claimed that Sneiderman wanted her husband murdered so that she would receive a large life insurance payout prior to starting a new life with Neuman.)

• When did Sneiderman actually learn that her husband had been shot and killed? Prosecutors are adamant that Sneiderman destroyed text messages and a record of phone calls between herself and Neuman the day her husband was killed. They also claim that she initially failed to tell police that she suspected Neuman was involved in the killing. They further state that Sneiderman lied to police during the investigation and under oath while on the stand at Neuman’s trial about: 1)her romantic relationship with him; and 2) when she found out about her husband’s death.

The phone records presented at Neuman’s month-long trial last year trial appear to have demonstrated the following:

Sneiderman and Neuman exchanged three phone calls on the eve of her husband’s death. Sneiderman called Neuman six more times on the way to the hospital. Under oath, she testified that she didn’t know her husband had been shot until she reached the hospital about an hour after the shooting. This is contradicted by statements made by her father-in-law and a close friend — who both testified she told them he had been shot during calls made on her way to the hospital.

According to Professor Carlson, although the murder charges might have been (would have been) very difficult for the prosecutors to prove, false statements and perjury charges are often tough for the defense.

One of Hemy Neuman’s lawyers has stated on multiple occasions that his client will not testify in Andrea Sneiderman’s trial.

The case, beginning with Rusty Sneiderman’s murder and continuing right up through Neuman’s trial and into the present, has captured enormous media attention and public interest. This fact was clearly on lawyers’ minds when they were questioning potential jurors last week.

*     *     *     *     *

The plea deal that Sneiderman turned down is believed to have been for one year in state prison. Although such an outcome would have certainly been no joke for the defendant, she faces a substantially longer sentence if she is convicted on some or all of the remaining charges of hindering the investigation, concealing material facts, making false statements, and committing perjury. The judge is reportedly tough at sentencing and if convicted Sneiderman could realistically receive — in my opinion — up to five years in state prison.