Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, May 23, 1990 TAG: 9005230537
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B-1 EDITION: EVENING
SOURCE: MONICA DAVEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: BEDFORD LENGTH: Medium
The choice of Nelson County does not make sense, attorneys Rick Neaton and William Cleaveland argued in a motion filed in Bedford County Circuit Court.
Bedford Judge William Sweeney has ruled that a panel of Nelson County residents will commute daily to Bedford County to hear Soering's trial in the slayings of his former girlfriend's parents. Sweeney decided not to allow a Bedford County jury to hear the June 1 trial because of extensive publicity surrounding the case since Nancy and Derek Haysom were slashed to death in March 1985.
But Neaton and Cleaveland say Nelson County, separated from Bedford by Amherst County, isn't far enough away.
Television stations have broadcast news stories about Soering's case to Nelson County, Soering's attorneys stated. They said that Channel 13 WSET from Lynchburg and several Charlottesville television stations broadcast there regularly and Roanoke stations are carried on some cable stations there.
Some Nelson County residents also receive newspapers from Lynchburg and Charlottesville - both of which have covered the case and have published editorials critical of Soering while he was fighting extradition to this country, the defense motion claimed.
The defense has already subpoenaed circulation lists and copies of stories from newspapers distributed in the county, apparently to be used as support for the case against Nelson County.
As of this week, two newspapers had responded to the request. One said it did not want to give the information because it could not provide reader lists and did not have the personnel to find clips on the case. Another turned in the information Tuesday - bringing to four the number of thick files the Soering case takes up in the Circuit Court Clerk's office.
Soering, the 23-year-old son of a West German diplomat, is accused of carrying out the killings at the Haysoms' cottage home just outside Lynchburg after he and his girlfriend, Elizabeth Haysom, planned them. Elizabeth Haysom pleaded guilty to helping plot the killings and is serving 90 years in prison. The crimes occurred when Soering and Haysom were first-year honor students at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.
Neaton and Cleaveland also objected to the method by which Sweeney picked out Nelson County, saying it violated Soering's right to due process. Neither the defense nor the prosecution was allowed to introduce evidence about publicity in the case, the motion said.
In addition, Neaton and Cleaveland said the judge should have taken the case out of Bedford County altogether. They said the drive to Bedford will be inconvenient for jury members and could expose the county to civil liability if a juror is injured during the commute.
It could also hurt the case, they argued. "The long trip for jurors increases the probability that jurors will be tired during the trial and deliberations and make decisions based on a desire to get home rather than upon the evidence and law as instructed by the court," the motion said.
Neaton and Cleaveland did not specifically ask that Sweeney change his decision about Soering's jury. Rather, they asked to "preserve these specific objections for the record."
Such objections could be useful to the defense if they were to later seek appeal - if Soering were found guilty.
The defense attorneys filed a separate motion objecting to the judge's decision not to announce whether Soering's incriminating statements will be allowed as evidence in his trial until after a jury is selected.
Sweeney made the decision to prevent additional publicity about the statements before the trial starts.
That decision also prevents Soering's attorneys from questioning potential jurors about their knowledge of the statements Soering made to police in 1986 or about their attitudes toward the statements, the attorneys said.
"The defendant is put in the dilemma of either asking the jurors questions about statements that are then ruled inadmissible and thereby alerting the jurors to factors which would not arise at trial, or not asking the jurors questions about the statements which are subsequently admitted at trial and thereby neglecting to discover a particular bias or prejudice," the attorneys wrote.
Sweeney will hear the pretrial motions May 29, three days before the trial is set to begin.
by CNB