As prosecutors argued to keep the Dunwoody daycare killer from getting a new trial in the murder of Rusty Sneiderman, it is possible they may help Sneiderman's widow to get her own new trial.

Hemy Neuman is seeking a new trial for the 2010 shooting death of Rusty Sneiderman, the husband of Neuman's coworker, Andrea Sneiderman.  While evidence and testimony pointed to the fact that the two were having an affair, neither of them has admitted it in a courtroom.  He was found guilty but mentally ill of the killing.

One of Neuman's appeal issues now before the state Supreme Court is that his conviction hung largely on testimony from the victim's widow, who was later convicted in a separate trial of perjury and eight other counts related to lying to police and lying in court.

Sneiderman, who finished serving her time last June, is also seeking a new trial.  The filing by attorney Brian Steel is contending that her false testimony was not material to Neuman's conviction.  The filing was made days after Neuman's lawyers had their oral arguments before Georgia's Supreme Court.

DeKalb County Chief Assistant District Attorney Anna Cross told state Supreme Court justices that Neuman's conviction did not hinge entirely on Sneiderman's testimony, and says there was more than enough evidence to convict him without it.  In fact, she said that the widow's testimony and her repeated denials of the love affair, even confronted with contradictory evidence, made for testimony that "was ridiculous, honestly."

"It was context for the motive of the crime, it gave some information that was relevant to the crime, but relevant and material is not the same as crucial or essential," said Cross.

WSB legal analyst Phil Holloway says Sneiderman's lawyers might argue that the DeKalb County district attorney's office may have painted itself into a legal corner, giving Sneiderman a decent shot at getting the new trial she wants.

"By itself, a false statement under oath is not perjury in the state of Georgia.  It's only perjury in Georgia if and only if it is material to a point or issue in question," says Holloway.  "Of course, in Hemy Neuman's trial, the ultimate issue was his guilt."

Holloway says it will be hard for prosecutors to argue to justices that Sneiderman's false testimony was not essential in Neuman's case, but then argue to a DeKalb County trial court that it was essential enough to warrant a perjury conviction barring the widow from getting a new trial.

"You can't have it both ways," says Holloway.  "It's either material or it's not.  And if it's not material to the issue in the case, which was his guilt, then under Georgia law, it does not meet the requirements of perjury."

Although Sneiderman has served her time, her lawyers have said that exoneration is important to her.

It appears that the battle could boil down to what is considered "material."

"She was a witness for the State that didn't talk about any of the elements of the offenses that the appellant was convicted of," said Cross last Tuesday.

"They're going to have to successfully argue to the court that her testimony was material to some other issue other than the guilt of Hemy Neuman," says Holloway.