Neuman Case: Judge Rules for State on Psychologist's Evaluation
Psychologist will have to hand over records from consultation with Neuman last year
Photos
One psychologist's evaluation of Hemy Neuman is now open to the DeKalb County District Attorneys office, according to an order filed Wednesday in the case against Neuman.
Neuman, who is facing murder charges in the killing of Rusty Sneiderman on Nov. 18, 2010, was evaluated by Dr. Peter Thomas last May, shortly after Neuman hired his defense attorneys.
Thomas was hired by Neuman's attorneys, Bob Rubin and Douglas Peters, to do the evaluation.
In September Neuman entered a plea of insanity.
With the insanity plea as the focal point of Neuman's upcoming trial, the state argued last week that Thomas' evaluation should be made available.
“We have no intention of violating any of his rights or to seek any privileged information,” argued Assistant District Attorney Don Geary. “We know the doctor performed an evaluation. We want to know what the result of the examination was and what his opinion was concerning the sanity of the defendant on the date of the offense.”
Neuman's attorneys argued that Thomas was hired by them, and therefore, his evaluation was protected under the attorney/client privilege.
“In our case, Dr. Thomas was hired by Mr. [Douglas] Peters and myself as a consultant, to help us understand the mental health issues in this case,” Rubin said. “He worked under our direction and supervision. He met with us and discussed the case with us and discussed with us clearly privileged information. It was understood at the time Dr. Thomas was consulted with that he would not be called to testify in this case.”
Judge Gregory Adams granted the state's motion Wednesday. He will first view the material to protect any part of the evaluation that is protected under the attorney client privilege.
"Dr. Thomas is then ordered to transmit all records in his possession concerning his evaluation(s) of the defendant to the court for an in camera review by the end of the next business day from the time of service by the State of this order," the order says. "Any records received by the Court, or any portion of records receive [sic] by the Court, which do not contain attorney-client communications, will thereafter be turned over to the State and the defendant."
Neuman's trial starts on Feb. 13.
Rees Chapman
12:48 pm on Thursday, January 12, 2012
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 . . .
Concerned citizen
6:39 pm on Thursday, January 12, 2012
Yor're so right Rees. Unfortunatelly ethics for this judge are not an issue. With a black judge, a black D.A. vs a white defense and white defendant you need to wake up and smell the coffee, read between the lines. This judge has been all too clear on his unethical intentions, which is quite unfortunate for Neuman. Neuman doesn't stand a chance if his trial will be handled the way all his pre-trial proceedings.
For such a smart, well studied, well positioned, methodical person, it's very difficult to beleive that Neuman could have been in his right mind.
Why would he have done everything out in the open? Rent a car, buy a gun, go to a shooting range, get a false beard, etc.......... and all under his own name? Who in their right mind does that?
It should be one very interesting trial
Rees Chapman
12:42 am on Friday, January 13, 2012
I don't conclude he was in his "right mind," but I have little doubt that he knew right from wrong - the criteria for sanity in most crimes - at the time of the shooting. He was lucid enough to remove the license plates from the van, to practice shooting, to disguise himself. It clearly shows premeditation & a clear effort to avoid identification; if he didn't know it was wrong to kill his lover's wife, he obviously knew that it was against the law, & that powerful forces would impose adverse consequences if he was found out. And his efforts at avoiding detection might have worked: it took six weeks for him to be identified as the killer and apprehended.
Despite my strong belief that his client's insanity plea is bogus & will fail, I don't believe Dr. Thomas should provide the court his evaluation without Neuman's authorization. If Dr. Thomas had evaluated Mr. Neuman prior to the shooting and had determined that he was intending to shoot Sneiderman, he would have violated ethics if he'd withheld that information from responsible parties. But after the murder, with the assessment occurring in a forensic facility, Neuman should have been able to assume that the findings of his interaction with Dr. Thomas would remain confidential unless he authorized their release, just as the visit of an attorney or a minister would be privileged. I, too, am a psychologist, & in such a situation, I'd be inclined to refuse the judge's order, based on ethical principles of confidentiality.
Greg Cox
9:12 am on Friday, January 13, 2012
I concur with Dr. Chapman. If the court needs an evaluation of Mr. Neuman's state of mind at the time of the alleged killings, such an evaluation can easily be had. Dr. Thomas' evaluation was conducted with an expectation of confidentiality on Mr. Neuman's part and I see no compelling ethical demand to violate that confidentiality. In fact, one could raise the question of the validity of an evaluation done with an expectation of confidentiality once that confidentiality has been violated.
Rees Chapman
12:36 pm on Friday, January 13, 2012
Thanks, Dr. Cox. In fact, the killings aren't alleged - they're admitted by Mr. Neuman. He essentially admits killing Sneiderman, but claims he is not responsible because he says he was insane. Only the insanity is alleged.
Greg Cox
8:08 am on Sunday, January 15, 2012
Oops, should have said alleged murder.
What goes around comes around
12:16 am on Saturday, January 14, 2012
I hope that what is revealed in his report will shorten the trial, saving taxpayers, and maybe some of Hemy's mother's $300K. But what's the point anyway? According to the Am Psychiatric Assoc, defendants winning this argument spend as much or more time in a psychiatric institution as those convicted and sentenced to a correctional facility, and that they're subjected to long-term judicial oversight once released, unlike a convict who received a conventional guilty verdict. Only 1% of cases in 48 states (not permitted in 2 or 3 states) invoke this plea, and only 20% of those are successful. I guess if his lawyers succeed with this strategy, they can semi-retire to a tropical island and take only the cases of the rich and famous. My bet is they won't.
Rees Chapman
5:45 am on Saturday, January 14, 2012
I’m not a forensic psychologist - I understand “insanity” quite well from a clinical perspective, not from a legal one - so my knowledge of the insanity plea is little wiser than a layperson’s. But I know the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 largely returned to the M'Naughten standard, dating back to 1843. In this, the burden of proof falls to the defendant, who must prove that he was unable to differentiate right from wrong at the time of the murder due to a mental disorder, which must be severe to the point of being largely incapacitating. As you state, less than 1% of all court cases employ it, and then with only a 26% success rate. Of those cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness. The overwhelming evidence of premeditation in the absence of any signs of gross impairment before, during, or after the killing makes it seem rather obvious that Neuman’s plea will fall well within the 74% of unsuccessful cases.
Geary and Adams are prosecuting this case as if they do not understand the dynamics of an insanity plea. They seem to have assumed the burden of proof as their own, not Neuman’s. And in doing so, they are compelling a potential witness to compromise his ethics.