It was a trial that captivated the public, and now the case goes before the Georgia Supreme Court.

Hemy Neuman was convicted in March 2012 in the murder of Rusty Sneiderman outside of the Dunwoody Prep Daycare Center.  Sneiderman was shot four times at close range on November 18, 2010.

Neuman's defense during his murder trial was his claim that he had been involved in an affair with Sneiderman's wife, Andrea, and that his love for her led to the killing.

A DeKalb County jury convicted Neuman and Judge Gregory Adams sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

However, a key witness for the prosecution was Andrea Sneiderman who, about a year later, was convicted of perjury for lying during her testimony in the Neuman trial.

It is that perjury that is at the center of Neuman's appeal.  The Georgia Supreme Court will hear arguments from both sides on Tuesday afternoon.

His attorneys argue, in briefs, that their client should be granted a new trial because Snederman lied about the affair and those lies undermined the defense.

Prosecutors say that while she did perjure herself, the jury would have convicted Neuman regardless.

"One argument we will likely hear from the state is that Andrea's testimony was self-serving to her," says WSB Senior Legal Analyst Ron Carlson, "as she tried to save face in the public eye.

"The DA will argue this testimony did not harm Hemy's case," he says.  "It would have been more prejudicial if she had told the truth since the affair would have given Neuman a motive for the murder."

There are other areas that the defense attorneys will bring up, but Sneiderman's perjured testimony will be at the center of their appeal.

However, even with the conviction, Carlson says the perjury, by itself, is not enough to guarantee a new trial.

"The Court will have to consider the nature of the perjured testimony," he says, "and whether that testimony was instrumental in obtaining a conviction."

That, Carlson says, is the hurdle the defense attorney will have to overcome.  And it can be done.

Carlson says Sneiderman's place on the witness list shows her importance to the prosecution's case (she was the first person called and testified for a day and a half), and the statements made at the time of her trial by the DA (he called her a key to the conviction of Neuman) will all play a role in how the court decides.

In the end, Carlson believes there should be a new trial for Neuman, even if he probably would have been convicted without Sneiderman's testimony.

"This case is too high profile and too well known to allow perjured testimony to be part of the trial transcript," he says.  "This has to be more about the process of granting a fair trial rather than just the outcome of the case."