ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, March 29, 1996 TAG: 9603290081
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press CHARLOTTESVILLE
The Attorney General's Office says convicted killer Jens Soering had adequate representation during his trial for the murders of his girlfriend's parents.
In a response to Soering's appeal filed Wednesday with the Virginia Supreme Court, Attorney General Jim Gilmore's office argued that Soering never showed that any alleged errors by his attorney changed the outcome of the trial.
``Soering ... must show some specific error or omission amounting to gross incompetence ... and must show that, but for such error or omission, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would be different,'' John H. McLees Jr., an assistant attorney general, said in the state's response.
Soering claims his attorney, Richard Neaton, suffered from mental problems during his trial and failed to attack key evidence against him.
Soering, 29, also alleges that Bedford County withheld from the defense evidence of other possible suspects in the case. McLees denied the allegation, but said it should be heard in Bedford Circuit Court.
No date has been set for oral arguments in Soering's appeal.
Soering was convicted in 1990 for the 1985 murders of his girlfriend's parents, Derek and Nancy Haysom, whose bodies were discovered in their Bedford County home. Both had been stabbed many times.
Soering, serving two life terms, now claims he confessed to the crimes to protect his girlfriend, Elizabeth Haysom. As the son of a German diplomat, Soering mistakenly thought his father's diplomatic immunity would protect him from prosecution in Virginia. He said he thought he would be tried in Germany as a juvenile and receive only a short sentence.
Haysom, 31, pleaded guilty in 1987 to two counts of accessory to murder and is serving a 90-year sentence. She has denied participating in the murders.
In his latest appeal, filed in December, Soering also claims that the trial judge decided he was guilty before the trial started, that pretrial publicity might have prejudiced jurors against him and that his confessions were made under duress and after repeated requests for an attorney.
The state in February contended those three points should be dismissed because they had been addressed in previous appeals. The Attorney General's Office asked for another 30 days to respond to the other two claims, which are new.
According to Soering's appeal, Neaton told the Michigan Bar Disciplinary Board that he suffered emotional problems during the period of Soering's trial and initial appeals. Michigan revoked Neaton's law license in 1993 because of an unrelated misconduct charge.
Neaton, according to the appeal, did not vigorously rebut a bloody sockprint that prosecutors said linked Soering to the crime but that some experts since the trial have said more closely matched Haysom's footprint.
LENGTH: Medium: 58 lines ILLUSTRATION: PHOTO: (headshot) Soering. color.by CNB