Andrea Sneiderman guilty of perjury in preschool murder case

Andrea Sneiderman was found guilt of nine counts, including hindering an investigation and false statements in connection with the fatal shooting of her husband outside an Atlanta preschool. Andrea Sneiderman was not charged with murder.

A Georgia jury found Andrea Sneiderman guilty of nine counts in her trial on charges including false statements and perjury Monday afternoon.

Sneiderman's husband, Rusty Sneiderman, was shot in November 2010 outside a suburban Atlanta preschool. Her former boss Hemy Neuman was convicted in March 2012, but was found mentally ill.

Prosecutors accused Sneiderman of lying to police investigating her husband's death and lying under oath during Neuman's trial. The 13-count indictment included charges of making false statements, hindering an investigation and perjury.

Jurors got the case after closing arguments Thursday and deliberated all day Friday before leaving without a verdict. They returned for additional deliberations Monday and delivered the verdict after more than three hours.

Sneiderman was found guilty of hindering the apprehension of a criminal, concealment of material facts, three counts of giving false statements and four counts of perjury. She was found not guilty of three counts of perjury and one count of giving a false statement.

Prosecutors maintained that Andrea Sneiderman was having a romantic relationship with Neuman and that she repeatedly lied about the relationship, which they said hindered the investigation into her husband's death. Sneiderman and her defense team repeatedly denied that there was no romantic relationship and that police bungled the investigation by not focusing on Neuman even after she mentioned him to them.

Sneiderman's defense has said prosecutors had a weak case, but were desperate to convict Sneiderman of something.

Judge Gregory Adams set Sneiderman's sentencing for 9 a.m. Tuesday and said she had 30 days to file her notice of intent to appeal. Sneiderman was taken into custody shortly afterward and was led from the courtroom as her tearful relatives looked on.

Throughout the trial, the prosecution played and replayed video and audio clips of Sneiderman's interviews with police during the investigation and her testimony during Neuman's trial and contrasted that with witness testimony and documents that they said proved she had lied to police and the court.

The defense called a string of character witnesses who testified that Andrea and Rusty Sneiderman had a happy and loving relationship. They also called some experts to refute some of the documents and evidence presented by the prosecution.

Sneiderman, 37, of Decatur, was arrested last August after prosecutors accused her of helping to orchestrate the killing of her husband. She spent much of the last year under house arrest. Lawyers for both sides had for months been planning for a trial on one count each of malice murder, felony murder and aggravated assault, as well as one count each of hindering the apprehension of a criminal and concealment of material facts, four counts of making false statements and seven counts of perjury.

But on July 26 — on the eve of jury selection — DeKalb County District Attorney Robert James took the unusual step of asking the judge to dismiss the murder and aggravated assault charges. James cited his recent review of evidence the defense turned over as part of pre-trial discovery as the reason for dropping the charges.

Thomas Clegg, one of Sneiderman's lead attorneys, balked at the explanation. "I believe they have known all along that they didn't have a murder case," he said in open court. The judge granted James' request before the start of jury selection and released Sneiderman from house arrest.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.