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.

6th Circuit holds a Sleeping Attorney is Not "Ineffective" Counsel

• Muniz v. Smith

The 6th Circuit heard a case out of Michigan last week that involved a defendant's appeal of a conviction for assault with intent to commit murder, felon in possession of a firearm, and felony firearm. Muniz argued that his 6th Amendment right to counsel was violated because his attorney fell asleep during his trial.

The 6th Circuit first had to decide which rule of law to follow. Muniz argued that the Court should only apply the rule of U.S. v. Cronic which held that there are "circumstances so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of their effect in a particular case is unjustified and prejudice is presumed." The lower Court previously used the standard of U.S. v. Strickland which held that in order to successfully claim that an attorney was so ineffective as to violate the 6th Amendment, the defendant must prove two things: that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant.

Applying both rules, the 6th circuit determined that the defendant had not proven that his counsel's slumber had a prejudicial effect on his defense. Applying the rule from Cronic, the Court had to decide whether Muniz had proven that his attorney slept through a "substantial part" of his trial. The only evidence Muniz offered was testimony from two of the jurors who said they saw the attorney sleeping during Muniz's cross-examination. His cross-examination made up only a very small part of the trial transcript. This evidence, the Court held, did not prove the attorney slept through substantial portion of the trial.

Applying the rule from Strickland, the Court had to decide whether the attorney's conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and if so, if that conduct prejudiced the defendant. The Court held that there is no question that the attorney's conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Sleeping in court during your client's cross-examination is not reasonable conduct for an attorney. What the defendant could not prove, however, was that his attorney's conduct prejudiced the defendant's defense. In order to do so, Muniz would have to prove that the outcome of the trial would have been different. The evidence against Muniz was so strong, the Court held that it was unlikely that the outcome of the trial would have been different even if the attorney had not fallen asleep.

If an attorney sleeping through examination of his client by the government is not enough to trigger relief, what is? Sounds like the Court is asleep on this issue as well. I understand that in a case--especially one of strong proof--that the court can't be reversing on collateral issues. But I wonder what the trial court was doing. Surely, if two jurors are to believed and counsel was asleep, the Court was aware. I can't think of anything more damaging to the integrity of the judicial process than a sleeping defense attorney. You can imagine what the jurors said, "if his own lawyer doesn't care enough to be awake for the trial you know he's guilty."

Sixth Circuit Remands Gun Case for Sentencing Recalculation

• US v. JOSE GALAVIZ

Jose Galaviz challenges his 70-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm on the grounds that the district court miscalculated his criminal-history category.  This challenge by Galavitz is not prevented by the language of his plea agreement, which provided that:

Defendant retains his right to directly appeal the Court’s adverse determination of any disputed guideline issue that was raised at or before the sentencing hearing.”  The issue of the district court’s calculation of his criminal-history category under the Guidelines was raised by Galaviz both in a sentencing memorandum submitted to the court prior to sentencing and at the sentencing hearing. Therefore, under the language of the plea agreement, Galaviz has preserved the issue for appeal.

At issue here is whether being incarcerated waiting for a parole revocation is the same thing as being revoked for subsequent sentencing purposes.  The Sixth Circuit says not, and under the policy of lenity it means that the Court will not interpret a federal statute so as to increase the penalty it places on Galavitz now at this sentencing when such an interpretation can be no more than a guess as to what Congress intended.  Case remanded by the Sixth Circuit for resentencing.