Psychologist ordered to turn over evaluation of Dunwoody murder suspect

Written By: Andrew Cauthen
1/12/12
Categorized in: Crime, DeKalb News

The doctor who evaluated the mental state of Hemy Neuman, accused of the November 2010 killing of a Dunwoody man, has been ordered to turn over the records of the evaluation.

Superior Court Judge Gregory Adams on Jan. 11 ordered Dr. Peter Thomas to “transmit all records in his possession concerning his evaluation of [Neuman].”

The order states that “any records received by the Court…which do not contain privileged attorney-client communications will thereafter be turned over to the state and the defendant.”

Neuman has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to charges that he killed Russell Sneiderman, an entrepreneur who had just dropped his child at a daycare.

During a hearing on Jan. 4, Neuman’s defense attorney Bob Rubin objected to the release of the mental evaluation saying it was never intended for Thomas to be a witness in the case.

“We were trying to understand what this case was all about,” Rubin said.

Rubin also said the district attorney’s office has had the opportunity to do its own evaluation of Neuman.

Erik Burton, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, said the judge’s order was delivered to Thomas on Jan. 11 and he has until the end of Jan. 12 to turn over the documents to the district attorney.

Comments (5)

David

Said this on 1/13/12 At 04:43 pm

Doctor-patient confidentiality is not even an issue here. Once Neuman put his mental state at issue by pleading insanity, he opened the door to all of his mental health records. The issue is whether an expert hired as a consultant by the defense can be compelled by the Court to turn over records which are arguably protected by the attorney-client privilege. In this case, the Court is going to first review the records and redact anything that is atty-client privileged. I think the Court got it right.

KattzSchmattz

Said this on 1/12/12 At 11:17 pm

In reply to #3

And I concur, Dr Yattz. I feel certain you'd agree with me that Mr. Neuman's kids will also have to grow up under more or less equally miserable circumstances. No winners here. I'll be curious to learn whether Mr. Neuman's defence will describe a 'tipping point' that sent this apparently regular guy over the edge. If I were an attorney I might paint a picture of a weak man who left his family to bet his entire future with a lover who suddenly jilted him, so to speak. Having lost everything, he figures that his only chance of a future is to eliminate his love rival. As your observation suggests, his apparent regularity doesn't hint at, say, long-festering mental illness. We shall see. But I can't help but feel a long-standing not gulty position followed by a guilty-but-insane plea will not engender much judicial sympathy. Fascinating case.

Common sense

Said this on 1/12/12 At 07:11 pm

In reply to #1

Dr Yattz - well, perhaps. I understand your point, however, this was a cold-blooded murder, a confessed murder, from someone who seemingly led a fairly normal life. Mr. Sneiderman's children are going to grow up with this horrific case, and their mother's involvement, in their memories forever. Looks to me like justice should trump their lame defense, despite the attempts to preserve professional ethics and confidentiality.

KattzSchmattz

Said this on 1/12/12 At 02:36 pm

Then you'd go to DeKalb jail, DrTattz, where I suspect you would not be congratulating yourself on your ethical integrity for very long. I hear the food's not great. Incidentally, the journalist writes: Bob Rubin objected to the release of the mental evaluation saying it was never intended for Peters to be a witness. Instead of Peters, did he mean [Peter] Thomas, the psychologist? [Doug] Peters is one of the defendent's two attorneys, I believe. He would certainly not be called to testify, but would rather be doing the calling. Nevertheless, I suspect the state has a strong suspicion that the defendent was found by the psychologist to have known what he was doing when he committed the crime. New gun? Check. Fake beard? Check. Rented van from another state? Check. Ability to reason? Er, well ... ah, probably check.

DrYattz

Said this on 1/12/12 At 01:46 pm

From a psychological perspective (not a legal one), I believe the judge’s ruling is wrong; it compels Dr. Thomas to compromise his professional ethics and violate assurances of confidentiality. The psychologist is thus put in a very bad position where he must either breach his ethics or defy the court order. If I were put in such a quandry, I’d probably honor my ethics . . .

New comments are currently disabled.

Archived News