The case of John McNeil is heading back to the Georgia Supreme Court.

The attorney general's office, at the request of the Cobb County district attorney, is appealing the ruling of a Baldwin County judge, who decided that McNeil received inadequate counsel during his trial.

McNeil is a Kennesaw businessman serving a life prison sentence for killing an armed man on his property. The case centers on events from December 6, 2005.

McNeil received a call from his teenage son, who told him there was a man in his backyard. McNeil heard his son ask the man to get off the property and reported that he also heard the man reply, "Make me leave." The son then told his father that the man had waved a knife in his face.

McNeil says he told his son to go back into the house, that he was calling the police, and that he was heading home.  He then called 911 and told the operator that he believed he knew who the man was and, if it was him, he was going to "kick his a**."

The man was Brian Epp, a contractor who had done work on McNeil's house but had been fired weeks before and was told not to return.

According to McNeil, when he arrived at the house, Epp was sitting in his truck in the next-door driveway. Witnesses say they saw Epp reach for something out of the truck and put it in his right pocket. Then Epp came back onto McNeil's property.

McNeil took his gun from the glove compartment, loaded it, and got out onto his driveway. 

He showed Epp the gun and told him to get off the property.  When Epp started coming at McNeil, Mcneil backed up, fired a warning shot into the ground and again told Epp to leave.

Witnesses testified that after the warning shot, Epp "accelerated" towards McNeil who, while standing with his back to his garage door, fired a single shot, killing Epp.

A utility knife was found in Epp's right pocket.

Cobb County police investigated and ruled the shooting self-defense.

But months later, the Cobb County DA filed murder charges against McNeil. He was tried, convicted of felony murder, and sentenced to life in prison.

In a press statement following the appeal filing, the Attorney General's office writes:

"This is an emotional case.  One side argues that Mr. McNeil was justified in defending himself when the victim threatened his son with a knife and then, upon Mr. McNeil’s return to his house, charged Mr. McNeil in Mr. McNeil’s front yard even after Mr. McNeil fired a warning shot and then shot the victim from less than three feet away.  The other side argues that Mr. McNeil had a long-running feud with the victim, told the 911 dispatcher he was returning to his house for the purpose of “whip[ing the victim’s] ass,” ignored the 911 dispatcher’s direction to stay in his car and wait for police who were already en route, and was untruthful to police on the scene about the victim approaching him with a knife.

"These two sides were presented to the jury, and the jury found Mr. McNeil guilty of murder.  Mr. McNeil appealed that verdict and argued the jury wrongly rejected his claim of self defense.  The Georgia Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the racially-diverse jury’s verdict.

"The issue in this case is different.  The only issue in this case is whether Mr. McNeil’s veteran defense attorney represented him so poorly that the jury’s verdict was reasonably likely to have been different if the attorney had acted adequately."

The Attorney General finishes his press release by opening the door to a possible arrangement.

"Finally, it should be emphasized that the habeas court’s order, if left unappealed, would result only in a new trial.   The habeas court did not determine that Mr. McNeil was innocent of the charges brought against him, or that the prosecutor or jury acted out of prejudice or bias in the handling of his case.  Now that the appeal has been filed, it will be up to the Georgia Supreme Court to determine whether Mr. McNeil received an adequate defense and a fair trial.  In the meantime, and since an appeal necessarily contains an element of risk for both sides, the defendant and the district attorney are certainly free to entertain an alternate plea agreement that respects the judicial process and serves justice."