Supreme Court Strikes Down Mandatory Life Sentences For Juveniles

By Jay Perry

On Monday the Supreme Court issued a ruling on Miller v.Alabama, a case previous discussed here.  The case involved two fourteen year old defendants who had been mandatorily sentenced to life without parole after they were convicted of murder.  In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the imposition of mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the 8^th Amendment prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment”.  The decision (and its announcement) is particularly interesting for two reasons: the dissents were particularly vigorous and the media coverage surrounding the decision misstated the holding of the case.

The decision came complete with three separate dissenting opinions authored by Justices Roberts, Alito, and Thomas.  These dissents demonstrate that there was strong disagreement among the Justices about this case.  In particular, Justice Alito read his dissent from the bench, an unusual occurrence that seems to demonstrate extremely strong disagreement with the majority ruling.

  Chief Justice Roberts cited the fact that there are currently an estimated 2,500 juveniles serving such sentences and that a majority of states impose such mandatory sentences.  Thus, part of his argument is that they are in no way “unusual”.  In the end he concludes that although there may be moral arguments against mandatory life sentences, there are not good legal ones and hence it “is not our decision to make.”  This argument for judicial restraint, which is echoed in all of the dissents, is interesting because it often is used inconsistently by members of the Court.  After all, it was Chief Justice Roberts who wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United, explicitly overturning Supreme Court precedent from twenty years earlier.

Also worth highlighting is the inaccuracy of much of the media coverage regarding the decision.  Many of the headlines read that the Supreme Court had banned life sentences for juveniles (examples here, here, and here).  That was not what the Court ruled however, what they said was unconstitutional was the mandatory imposition of life without parole sentences.  States are still free to sentences juveniles to these sentences but must take into account their age and circumstances before doing so.  Many of the news accounts mention this in the body of the article which begs the question of why the inaccurate headlines?  It is just sloppy reporting or an attempt to oversimplify what happened?  It is important with the Supreme Court so prominent recently in public discourse that coverage of their decisions is accurate.  

As to the ruling itself, it makes good sense.  Juveniles are different from adults, we all understand this.  If a juvenile convicted of murder is mandatorily sentenced, it ensures that their age or mitigating circumstances are never taken into account during the process.  Once prosecutors make the decision to try them as adults their individualized circumstances are not considered.  Under this scheme, juries cannot consider their age or mitigating circumstances, their focus is on guilt or innocence.  All criminal punishment rests of a framework of moral reckoning, an understanding that we as a society are punishing an individual for their morally culpable behavior.  Because of circumstances often beyond their control and which they cannot escape, juveniles can be less morally culpable.   When we sentence them, we should consider not only the terrible crimes they have committed but their entire story, to do less is dehumanizing.

Hemy Neuman Found Guilty but Mentally Ill

Last week, the jury reached a verdict in the highly-publicized daycare shooting trial of Hemy Neuman. If you have been following the blog posts, you know that Neuman was accused of shooting Rusty Sneiderman on the lawn of a daycare in Dunwoody back in November 2010. He plead not guilty by reason of insanity, arguing that an angel who looked like Olivia Newton John told him he needed to kill Rusty Sneiderman. Neuman was intimately involved with Rusty Sneiderman's wife, Andrea although she expressly denied having an affair several times while under oath.

The jury deliberated over two days. They were presented with three options: not guilty by reason of insanity, guilty but mentally ill, or guilty. The jury found him guilty but mentally ill for the murder charge, and guilty for the possession of a weapon during the commission of a felony charge. The judge sentenced him to life without parole. The Judge was faced with the option of a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 30 years, however the Judge said he believed the killing was a "planned execution with no justification." With the guilty but mentally ill verdict, Neuman will receive treatment for his illness while in prison. The distinction between a not guilty by reason of insanity and a guilty but mentally ill verdict is that in the case of the former, the jury believes that the defendant did not know the difference between right and wrong during the commission of a crime. A guilty but mentally ill verdict indicates that the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the difference between right and wrong and knew the consequences of his actions, yet remains a mentally ill individual. Obviously, it is possible to be considered mentally ill, but still possess the intent to commit a crime. Apparently, that is what the jury believed here.

Once he was sentenced, DeKalb County District Attorney Robert James said, "He was a cold-blooded killer. An adulterer. And a liar. And he ultimately got what he deserved."

What will be interesting to see is what prosecutors decide to do about Andrea Sneiderman. She quickly became an interesting topic because of her adamant denial of the alleged affair with Neuman. In an earlier post, I described some key discrepancies in her testimony, the most important being her testimony of when she first learned of the shooting. Andrea testified that she first learned of the shooting when she arrived at the hospital and the doctors informed her of her husband's condition. However, two separate witnesses testified that Andrea called them while in route to the hospital and told both of the witnesses that her husband had been shot. Also, it wasn't until after she began to receive payments off of her husband's life insurance policy that she saw fit to express to the police a suspicion that Neuman could have been the shooter.

The question now is: will prosecutors bring charges against Andrea? She would likely be charged with conspiracy. With the evidence that has arisen against her, it is highly likely that charges will be brought soon. I'll keep you updated. But for now, the dramatic trial of Hemy Neuman has ended, and he will be spending the rest of his life in prison.

Supreme Court Examines the Possibility of Limitations on Sentences for Juveniles

The Supreme Court yesterday heard arguments surrounding two new cases up for their review. Both involved the question of just how severe a penalty imposed on a juvenile has to be in order to be considered unconstitutional. The first case involved a 14-year-old in Alabama who beat an older man to death and subsequently burned his house down. The second case involved another 14-year-old boy in Arkansas who, along with two older boys, tried to rob a video store in 1999. One of the older boys shot and killed the store clerk.

Proponents for harsh penalties point to the "sanctity of life" as the reason a juvenile should be sentenced harshly for crimes involving killings. Justice Ginsburg, however, noted that this argument could fail because if the sanctity of life is an important interest for the State, by imposing a life without parole sentence on a 14-year-old, the State is essentially throwing that life away. Dissenters of harsh sentences believe that teenagers are immature, and should be given a more lenient sentence because of that. Their main point seems to be that many juveniles deserve a life sentence for their crimes; however, what they don't deserve is the lack of hope that they will ever get out on parole. Many worry, however, just how many teenagers will continue to commit extreme crimes such as the ones involved and claim they are too immature to know better.

Here are some of the possible solutions the Court could reach:

• It could prohibit life without parole sentences for any minor under the age of 15.
• It could prohibit life without parole sentences for anyone under the age of 18.
• It could bar life without parole sentences for defendants who were accomplices to a crime.
• It could bar mandatory sentences, relying on the discretion of the particular Court to consider all the facts and circumstances of the case.

Defense Rests in Hemy Neuman Murder Trial

The defense rested in the Hemy Neuman Murder Trial late last week. Neuman, accused of murdering Rusty Sneiderman in front of his child's day care facility in November 2010, has plead not guilty by reason of insanity. The defensive strategy was to provide intensive expert testimony on the mental capacity of Neuman.

The Defense called two experts to testify as to the sanity of Neuman and his ability to recognize the difference between right and wrong at the time of the shooting. One expert was forensic psychiatrist, Tracy Marks. In an attempt to prove insanity, Marks spent the majority of her testimony discussing Neuman's suicidal thoughts, hallucinations, and symptoms of bipolar. She stated that Neuman had been experiencing suicidal thoughts and tendencies months before he ever hired Andrea Sneiderman, the wife of the victim who was allegedly engaged in an elicit affair with Neuman. During the defense's opening statement, the defense mentioned that Neuman had been visited by demons. Marks detailed an encounter with a demon in February 2010 where the demon supposedly told Neuman that he was worthless. Another demon, appearing in July 2010, told Neuman that Andrea Sneiderman's children were actually Neuman's children, and that they were being abused by their father, Rusty. One month later, that same demon allegedly told Neuman that he needed to kill Rusty Sneiderman in order to "protect them from suffering the same fate he did as a child in terms of being abandoned or rejected." Marks stated that certain statements and actions by Andrea Sneiderman fueled the fire in Neuman. Specfically, Marks said Andrea regularly complained to Neuman about tension in her marriage. She once emailed Neuman several pictures of her children without their father in the pictures. Neuman interpreted his absence to mean he was abusing the children.

The second expert that testified for the defense was forensic psychiatrist, Adriana Flores. Dr. Flores, along with Dr. Marks, diagnosed Neuman as mentally ill and suffering from bipolar disorder and psychosis. Dr. Flores expressed the opinion that because of his mental state, Neuman did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the shooting. The Prosecution has argued, however, that Neuman did know the difference between right and wrong because he disguised himself at the crime scene, he threw the gun in the lake after the shooting, and he lied to police about his involvement. Thus, on cross-examination, the prosecution asked Dr. Flores if it was possible that Neuman was lying. She responded that, "It's always possible."

Neuman informed the Court many times that he would not be testifying during his defense. However, the defense played taped interviews with Neuman in front of the jury. In these tapes, Neuman discussed the difficult childhood he experienced with an emotionally abusive father and an absent mother. Neuman became visibly upset when the tapes were played in court.

After the defense rested, the prosecution called a rebuttal witness, forensic psychiatrist Pamela Crawford to try and provide testimony from an expert who believed Neuman was faking his mental illness. The prosecution ended its rebuttal this morning. Closing arguments are expected to begin tomorrow morning. Once closing arguments are over, it will be up to the jury to decide the fate of Hemy Neuman.

Notorious "Daycare Shooting" Case Goes to Trial in DeKalb County, Georgia

If there was ever a real-life case that was made for Law and Order, this would be it. In November 2010, a bearded man in a hoodie fired several shots at Russell Sneiderman on the lawn of a day-care in Dunwoody, an affluent suburb of Atlanta. Sneiderman had just dropped his two-year-old son off at the day-care facility. Mr. Hemy Neuman has been accused of the murder of Sneiderman. If convicted, he could receive a sentence of life without parole. His highly-publicized trial began this week in DeKalb County, Georgia. There have been more wacky and unbelievable twists in the facts of this case, many believe it has the makings to be the next Lifetime movie. As you might have imagined, the case has flooded news outlets Atlanta and even national news outlets.

As a law student here in Atlanta, I am surrounded by the constant coverage of the trial and thought it would be interesting to blog about its progress. Here is some necessary background information: Neuman is a wealthy, high-ranking manager at GE. In early 2010, he hired a woman named Andrea Sneiderman (the victim's wife). It is alleged that the two began an elicit affair. After romancing Andrea on several occasions, it has been said that Neuman believed he and Andrea were going to get married despite the fact that Andrea was married with children. It got to the point where Neuman believed Andrea's children were his children, and that the children were in danger when around their father, Russell.

This is where the facts get interesting: according to the State, Neuman attempted to murder Sneiderman outside of the Sneiderman home but did not succeed for fear of being spotted by Andrea or their neighbors. On the morning of the shooting, Neuman went to work at 5:36 a.m. and snuck out the back door (where there exists a convenient lack of cameras). The State argues this was an attempt to secure an alibi. He drove to the day-care in a silver minivan, fired several shots, and quickly got back into his car and tried to take advantage of the notorious rush hour traffic in Atlanta so as to blend in with the thousands of motorists on the road at that time. All of this, the State argues, is evidence that Neuman planned out the murder in meticulous detail. The State also claims that Neuman was so callous to the situation, he went back to work that day and even attended the funeral services for the victim.

The defense, however, tells a different story. Neuman has plead not guilty by reason of insanity, claiming he did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the shooting. To further bolster this claim, the defense's opening statement claimed Neuman believed an angel who looked like Olivia Newton John ordered him to shoot Sneiderman. That's right, Olivia Newton John told him to shoot the victim.

The second day of trial was today, and Andrea was the State's first witness. Once her testimony is finished, I will update with a summary of her testimony. I must admit, along with the rest of Atlanta, I'm captivated by this trial. I will continue to update you on its progress.

Post Conviction denied in Juvenile life without parole murder conviction

Daniel Decker, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Decker was convicted by a jury of one count of first-degree premeditated murder and is currently serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition because the proof presented established that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel. More specifically, the petitioner alleges that the postconviction court erred in   multiple aspects, specifically: (1) that the courtheld that an expert witness had the duty and burden to present her opinions more completely at trial; (2) that the court erred by admitting a letter written by the petitioner to trial counsel after the conviction; (3) that the court should haverecused itself in the matter; (4) denying  relief because the petitioner met his burden of proof under the Strickland standard to establish ineffective assistance of counsel; (5) that the court erred by not reviewing trial counsel’s performance under the Cronic standard; and (6) that the court erred by failing to address all issues raised by the petitioner in its order denying relief.Court of Criminal Appeals finds no error and affirms the denial of the petition.

Full case State v. Decker