Dunwoody Prep Shooting: Neuman's Estranged Wife Takes Witness Stand

Wednesday morning, the DeKalb County Attorney’s Office called a surprise witness in the pre-trial hearings for Hemy Neuman – Neuman’s estranged wife.

Ariela Neuman was called to the stand during the hearing to help the District Attorney’s office support its argument that a search warrant of the Newmans' East Cobb home was conducted properly.

Hemy Neuman is accused of gunning down 36-year-old Russell ‘Rusty’ Sneiderman outside of a Dunwoody Prep last November.

It was the first time Mr. Neuman has seen his estranged wife since before he was arrested. Esther Panitch, Mrs. Neuman’s attorney, said she had a clear view of Hemy Neuman, who she said looked shocked and “went pale” when Ariella was called to the stand.

Mrs. Neuman wore a white shirt and purple cardigan, and spoke with a strong Israeli accent.

During last week’s pre-trial hearing, Mr. Neuman’s attorneys made the case that he was no longer a resident of the LaSalle Drive home in East Cobb.

They also questioned the process in which the search warrant was served.

Mrs. Neuman testified on both issues.

She said that Mr. Neuman had complete access to the house, even after he moved in with a family friend in Buckhead last October. (It is alleged that prior to that date, with Andrea Sneiderman, the widow of Rusty Sneiderman).

“He came back and forth,” she said. “He had the keys, the remote control.”

She said he was there almost every weekend and sometimes during the week.

When police arrived at the home on Jan 4, hours after Mr. Neuman was arrested, they did not yet have a warrant.

Mrs. Neuman offered her home up for search, she testified.

“I gave them my full permission to do it without a warrant,” she said.

Sgt. Curtis Clifton with the Dunwoody Police Department also testified about searching the Neumans' East Cobb home.

He testified that when he first got to the home, he and other officers explained that Mr. Neuman had been arrested and they would like to search the home. Clifton said she called the children downstairs and they explained the same thing to them.

Though Mrs. Neuman offered the search, the Clifton said they decided to wait to do a full search until the warrant arrived.

Panitch said that Mrs. Neuman was called because there was some question, based on previous testimony, as to whether the warrant would be allowed as evidence.

“My client did not want to have to come today,” she said. “She has given up her anonymity to be here.”

Mrs. Neuman cannot be compelled to testify, as she’s still married to Mr. Neuman, but volunteered to testify Wednesday, Panitch said.

“She’s relieved that it’s over,” Panitch said about her client’s testimony. “She was very anxious about having to see her estranged husband.”

The prosecution and defense made their final oral arguments Wednesday regarding several motions filed by the defense to suppress evidence gathered during search warrants and a motion from the defense to suppress Mr. Neuman’s initial and only conversation with police prior to his arrest.

One key issue for the defense was what they argued was a lack of specificity in several of the warrants.

“This is a classic definition of a general warrant,” said Bob Rubin, one of Mr. Neuman’s attorneys, regarding a warrant for an iPad. “It fails to specify any evidence whatsoever.”

Assistant District Attorney Don Geary disagreed.

“I’ve never found a point where the state has to describe with such certainty what exactly it is we are searching for,” he said, speaking generally about Rubin’s argument about specificity. “We normally search because we don’t know what is there.”

Geary said the goal of the warrant is to seek information to connect to the crime and that probable cause for warrants can be based on common sense – fair probabilities that evidence will be found in a location or on a device.

“What the defense counsel has asked for is many, many steps above that threshold,” he said.

Judge Gregory Adams is expected to make decisions on the motions in the next few weeks.