Neuman v. State, 297 Ga. 501

Background

Defendant Hemy Neuman shot and killed Russell Sneiderman; tried for malice murder and a firearm offense; jury found him guilty but mentally ill; sentenced to life without parole plus consecutive term.
Neuman pursued an insanity defense and his counsel retained two consulting mental-health professionals (Dr. Julie Rand Dorney and Dr. Peter Thomas) to screen and advise the defense; neither was retained to testify initially.
The trial court ordered the doctors to turn over notes and records for in camera review and then provided those materials to the State; the defense then called the doctors at trial to try to blunt their anticipated use by the State.
The State used the consultants’ records and testimony to impeach Neuman’s insanity claim (arguing malingering) and quoted consultant notes during closing; the jury requested to see Dr. Thomas’s notes during deliberations.
The trial court excluded testimony about privileged statements from Neuman’s wife to her psychotherapist, Dr. George Warsaw, because those communications were protected and not waived by the wife’s limited waiver for joint sessions.
The Georgia Supreme Court held the consultants’ records were protected by the attorney-client privilege and that disclosure to the State was reversible error; it affirmed exclusion of wife’s privileged therapy statements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether communications with defense-hired, non‑testifying psychiatric consultants are protected by the attorney‑client privilege	State: notes not privileged because the evaluation form stated the exam was not confidential and could be disclosed in court	Neuman: communications were confidential consulting work for counsel and thus privileged; no waiver occurred	Held: communications and notes of the consultants were privileged; disclosure to State was error and not harmless
Whether raising an insanity defense waives attorney‑client privilege over consultant communications	State: insanity defense waives privilege for psychiatric material	Neuman: raising insanity does not effect blanket waiver; privilege needed for defense preparation	Held: raising insanity defense does not automatically waive attorney‑client privilege for non‑testifying consultants
Whether defense counsel’s later decision to call the consultants forfeits privilege	State: calling consultants (or their materials) makes privilege inapplicable	Neuman: counsel only called them after court ordered disclosure to mitigate harm; strategic choice does not validate prior disclosure	Held: counsel’s tactical decision to call consultants after disclosure did not justify prior compelled production; privilege still applied to pre‑existing records
Whether statements by Neuman’s wife to her psychotherapist were admissible	State: expert may rely on such statements or hearsay exception for medical diagnosis	Neuman: intended to use those statements via expert reliance	Held: wife’s individual therapy communications were privileged (patient holds privilege) and properly excluded

Key Cases Cited

Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) (foundational statement on attorney‑client privilege and its importance for candid communications)
United States v. Alvarez, 519 F.2d 1036 (3d Cir. 1975) (attorney‑client privilege applies to communications with non‑testifying psychiatric consultants retained to assist defense)
People v. Knuckles, 650 N.E.2d 974 (Ill. 1995) (privilege protects defendant’s communications with psychiatrist employed by defense if that psychiatrist will not testify)
State v. Pratt, 398 A.2d 421 (Md. 1979) (communications to expert retained to aid counsel are within attorney‑client privilege in criminal cases)
Davis v. State, 285 Ga. 343 (2009) (discusses scope of privilege and communications that are not confidential)
Weakley v. State, 259 Ga. 205 (1989) (privilege does not cover nonconfidential expert testimony; distinguishes testimonial circumstances)