Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, April 21, 1990 TAG: 9004210387
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-3 EDITION: BEDFORD/FRANKLIN
SOURCE: By MONICA DAVEY STAFF WRITER {DATELINE} BEDFORD
DATELINE: {LEAD LENGTH: Medium
Defense attorney Rick Neaton had asked that the prosecution supply a bill of particulars, specifying the date of the killings and Soering's alleged role in them, to help prepare Soering's defense at his June 1 trial.
Bedford County Commonwealth's Attorney James Updike argued that he has already told the defense - and the public in general - specifically what he was charging Soering with over and over.
"I've been stating it for four years," Updike said. He said that he was accusing Soering, a West German national, with killing Derek and Nancy Haysom on Saturday, March 30, 1985, and that Soering's alleged role had been as a principal in the first degree.
The formal indictments against Soering list a weekend over which he is accused of first-degree murder. A charge of first-degree murder can be made against someone considered a principal in the first degree, second degree or an accessory before the fact.
"Could counsel really stand before your honor in good faith and state that they don't know what the commonwealth's evidence is?" Updike asked Neaton.
Updike said that he would give that information "to assist" Soering's defense preparation, but would decline to give a formal bill of particulars.
"We don't understand what this is all about," Updike said. He said that - even with a bill of particulars - the prosecution could not be bound at trial to that specific information. The law would not allow Soering to say at trial "Well, yeah, I killed them but it was on Sunday night," Updike said.
Judge William Sweeney did not appear to understand the defense request for a bill of particulars, either, given the specifics Updike had already supplied. He asked Neaton whether the defense intention was that the prosecution's case be "bound in concrete by that."
"Yes, that's why," Neaton said. "I want him to be bound by that."
On another matter, Updike argued that a defense request for Department of Corrections documents related to Soering's girlfriend's stay in prison was too broad and said that the attorney general's office was likely to fight the request.
Neaton has asked that all of Elizabeth Haysom's letters, reports and other documents be provided. Haysom, who pleaded guilty in 1987 to being an accessory before the fact in her parents' deaths, is serving a 90-year sentence in Goochland. She is expected to testify against Soering at his trial.
Sweeney said he would not rule on the request, but agreed that the state's attorney general's office was "99 percent" likely to fight the request. "If they asked for a hearing, we'll be back," Sweeney told Neaton.
Neaton said he was "perfectly willing to argue with the attorney general." He said he wanted a wide range of information about Haysom because "it could affect her credibility as a witness."
by CNB