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

DATE: WEDNESDAY, April 18, 1990                   TAG: 9004180468
SECTION: VIRGINIA                    PAGE: B-2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: MONICA DAVEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: BEDFORD                                LENGTH: Medium

SOERING'S ATTORNEYS GIVEN ALIBI DEADLINE

"Presumably, alibi defenses are based on truth, not trial strategy or timing," Judge William Sweeney wrote in a letter explaining his order.

Soering, a former University of Virginia honors student, faces a June 1 trial on charges that he killed the Boonsboro couple. Though Soering's attorneys have said he will plead innocent to the charges, they have revealed little about what their defense will be.

The Bedford county prosecutor and Soering's attorneys have argued about when Soering must provide information about his defense, including an alibi for the night of the killings, to the prosecutor.

As part of the reciprocal exchange of information, Commonwealth's Attorney James Updike turned over the bulk of his evidence against Soering on Jan. 26.

Defense attorneys Rick Neaton and William Cleaveland originally had until late February to supply Soering's alibi, but that deadline was extended when the trial itself was put off until June 1.

Last week, Updike asked that the defense be ordered to give him the information "out of a sense of fundamental fairness."

The defense attorneys asked to be allowed until May 21 to file an alibi.

Cleaveland argued that Soering's defense might depend on some information that is, as yet, unknown. The defense alibi, he said, might be affected by the results of independent analysis on a bloody footprint that the prosecution has said links Soering to the Haysoms' Boonsboro home and by whether the judge decides to allow into the trial Soering's incriminating statements to police in 1986.

But Sweeney ruled that an alibi should not be conditioned on his decision on whether to suppress Soering's statements.

Noting that Updike already gave "full and timely response" to the defense's requests for information about his case against Soering, Sweeney said it was the defense's turn.

"The time has now come for the party who initiated discovery to provide limited discovery himself and allow the other side adequate reflection and preparation time on this issue," Sweeney said.