Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: MONDAY, March 5, 1990                   TAG: 9003052364
SECTION: VIRGINIA                    PAGE: B1   EDITION: EVENING 
SOURCE: MONICA DAVEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: BEDFORD                                 LENGTH: Medium

SOERING ISSUE UP TO JUDGE/ ARGUMENTS COMPLETED ON STATEMENTS TO POLICE

Soering's attorney, Rick Neaton, said his client's statements were made involuntarily and described police interrogation techniques used as some of the worst cases of "abuse" he had ever seen. "God save the Commonwealth and this court if these confessions are allowed in," Neaton said.

But Commonwealth's Attorney James Updike argued that Soering said what he did in June 1986 of his own free will and that the statements should be allowed into Soering's June 1 trial for the 1985 murders of Derek and Nancy Haysom.

Neaton and Updike rushed through summaries of their arguments in 30-minute closing statements today, but will be allowed two weeks to submit written arguments to the judge. Circuit Court Judge William Sweeney said he will rule on the matter in writing as soon after that as he can.

Neaton said Soering, the 23-year-old son of a West German diplomat, "clearly and unequivocally" asked to speak to a lawyer. Neaton said tape recordings of some statements and other records showed that Soering "wants an attorney and he wants one bad."

Police are required to stop all interrogations if a suspect asks for an attorney.

But Updike argued that Soering never made such a request. Rather, Soering chose to answer the questions he wanted to answer without an attorney, Updike said.

"He is deciding for himself; he is extremely intelligent; he decides he is competent enough to deal with the police," Updike said, "which he did not turn out to be."

Neaton claims that once Soering made it clear that he wanted an attorney, the investigators realized they would have to try a new tactic: threats. Soering has testified that British detective Kenneth Beever approached Soering in his cell and indicated - with his eyebrows raised - that Soering's girlfriend might be hurt if Soering didn't talk.

"Why would Beever say that?" Neaton said. "Somebody had to put the fear of God in my client." Once the threat had been made, for Soering, "All of the sudden the world was turned upside down," Neaton said.

Neaton said Sweeney had to believe Soering's testimony because other explanations did not make sense and because he gave other reliable testimony during the hearing.

Updike, however, said Sweeney should believe the testimony of three police officers over Soering's. The three detectives have testified that they never threatened Soering in any way.

Updike made light of the defense claim that Beever's raised eyebrows could somehow frighten Soering. "He raised his eyebrows some here in court," Updike said, "I didn't see anyone in the courtroom running for cover. The suggestion is ludicrous."

Even if such a threat had been made Soering's confession was not coerced, Updike said. "That allegation is disputed by three police officers, but even if it were true . . . that is nothing of the sort to rise to the level of overthrowing his [Soering's] will," Updike said.