Constitutional law, religion, philosophy, medicine, ethics and common sense are just a handful of the issues involved in the ongoing murder trial of a 41-year-old Weston woman.

“It’s all tangled up like a bowl of spaghetti,” noted Milwaukee criminal defense attorney Raymond M. Dall’Osto.

Leilani Neumann and her husband Dale are charged with second-degree reckless homicide in the death of their 11-year old daughter Kara who died of untreated diabetes last March.

Rather than seek medical treatment for their daughter, the Neumanns, who are deeply religious, prayed for Kara.

If convicted, the Neumanns could receive up to 25 years in prison. Dale is scheduled to stand trial in July.

Dall’Osto, who has been following the Leilani Neumann case, said one of the questions raised is whether a parent’s First Amendment right supersedes the need to act in a child’s best interests.

“Diabetes is not curable, but it is manageable and people do not have to die from it,” said Dall’Osto, of Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown. “So the question is, can parents make that decision for a child, or should someone step in and have acted in the child best interests? The law is not clear.”

Madison defense attorney Dean A. Strang suggested that another issue is whether the parents were aware of the risk involved with relying on divine intervention, rather than medical treatment.

“I would be aware of the risk of not taking someone to the doctor,” said Strang of Hurley, Burish & Stanton S.C. “But if my belief system is so greatly tilted toward divine power, I think I might appreciate the risk as I’m not praying hard enough, have not purged myself of sin, or whatever.”

Strang also questioned the motive of the prosecution in the case and said that while tragic and horrible, the trial likely will do little to dissuade other parent’s behavior in the future.

“It’s a treacherous road to be going down,” Strang said. “I don’t know who is on the jury, or how Leilani Neumann will be perceived, but the whole prospect of going down this road I think doesn’t lead to a very good outcome for anyone.”

Dall’Osto did not speculate on whether jurors will be sympathetic to Neumann, but said given that diabetes is a medically treatable disease the question of whether Kara Neumann had to die will be raised.

“I’m not sure how it’s going to play with jurors, since the majority are likely more main line religious or not at all,” Dall’Osto said.

While the Neumann case is unusual, it is not entirely unique.

Dall’Osto noted a 2003 Texas Supreme Court case, Miller v. HCA Inc., which involved a hospital providing medical treatment to a premature baby with severe, but non-terminal disabilities, despite the parents’ request that no care be given.

The Millers claimed that the hospital was liable for treating their daughter, Sydney Miller, without consent. The trial courts ruled in favor of the Millers and awarded more than $60 million in damages.

But the appellate courts reversed the decision, which was then upheld by the Texas Supreme Court on the grounds that the hospital was not required to seek court approval to administer emergency treatment without parental consent.

Portions of this story came from the Associated Press