Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, March 6, 1990 TAG: 9003062036
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B1 EDITION: STATE
SOURCE: MONICA DAVEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: BEDFORD LENGTH: Long
Soering's attorney, Rick Neaton, said his client made the statements to police in June 1986 involuntarily and categorized the investigators' interrogation tactics among the worst cases of "abuse" he had ever seen.
"God save the people of this commonwealth if these confessions are allowed in," Neaton said, in his own adaptation of the words read daily when court is opened in Bedford County.
But Commonwealth's Attorney James Updike argued that Soering said what he did of his own free will and that a jury should hear the statements at Soering's June 1 trial for the 1985 fatal stabbings of his girlfriend's parents, Nancy and Derek Haysom.
The attorneys rushed through 30-minute closing arguments Monday to end the pretrial hearing, which lasted four days and even kept the Bedford County Courthouse open all day Saturday.
Circuit Court Judge William Sweeney heard testimony from Soering, two British detectives and a Bedford County sheriff's investigator and heard four hours of taped conversations between Soering and the detectives.
Sweeney is allowing the attorneys two more weeks to submit written arguments on the defense motion to throw out Soering's statements. Sweeney said he will rule on the matter in writing as soon after that as he can.
Thus far, the prosecution has produced limited physical evidence - a bloody sock print and stains of type O blood - apparently linking Soering to the scene of the slayings. Allowing a jury to hear the tapes would obviously be crucial to the prosecution's case.
In his closing argument, 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. Once the request is made, interrogators are barred from continuing questioning unless the suspect himself asks to talk.
But Updike argued that Soering never asked for an attorney - and, in fact, repeatedly asked to talk to interrogators. 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, which he did not turn out to be," Updike said of the former University of Virginia honor student.
Neaton claimed that investigators knew Soering was asking for an attorney and realized they would have to try a new tactic - threats - to get him to asked to talk to the police. Soering had testified that British detective Kenneth Beever approached Soering in his London cell and indicated - with his eyebrows raised - that Soering's girlfriend, Elizabeth Haysom, 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 Soering gave other reliable testimony during the hearing.
Updike, however, told Sweeney that he should believe the testimony of three police officers over that of Soering. After all, Updike argued, Soering already has been convicted of a crime, for check fraud charges in Britain. The three detectives 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 joked that Soering's defense attorneys were acting as though Beever should have a "weapon permit" for his eyebrows.
"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.
Soering listened attentively, but unemotionally, as the attorneys presented their arguments. He jotted down notes and conferred several times with Neaton's co-counsel, William Cleaveland.
Though Updike and Neaton clearly disagreed on most points during the four-day hearing, they also seemed more friendly toward each other than they have during past pretrial hearings since Soering was returned to Bedford County Jan. 12. The two were seen chatting a few times during recesses.
Once in a while, though, their clashing styles showed up. At one point, Neaton and Updike got into a technical battle over the distinctions between introducing evidence, marking it for identification and simply using it to refresh testimony of a witness.
"I could show him this water glass to refresh his recollection if I wanted," Neaton said pointing at a glass on the defense table.
"But you wouldn't mark it," Updike countered.
"I just might," Neaton said.
Updike answered wearily, "I wouldn't be surprised."
The pair argued over numerous technical questions like that one. Even Sweeney admitted at one point that the suppression hearing was one of the most "sophisticated" he had heard.
"Maybe you're both getting over my head," the judge said.
by CNB