Title: Soering v. Deeds
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 971647
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: April 17, 1998

Present:  All the Justices 
 
 
JENS SOERING 
 
 
 
OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON 
v.  Record No. 971647 
April 17, 1998 
 
GEORGE DEEDS, WARDEN, KEEN 
MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BEDFORD COUNTY 
William W. Sweeney, Judge 
 
 
 
Petitioner Jens Soering was convicted in 1990 by a jury in 
the Circuit Court of Bedford County of two counts of first 
degree murder for the 1985 killings of Derek Haysom and Nancy 
Haysom in their Bedford County home near Lynchburg.  Soering is 
being detained by the respondent under two terms of life 
imprisonment for the murders. 
 
In 1995, the convict filed a petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court.  In 
August 1996, the Court, pursuant to Code § 8.01-657, awarded the 
petitioner a writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Circuit 
Court of Bedford County for determination of the issue “whether 
the Commonwealth withheld from the defense exculpatory evidence 
as alleged in claim V” of the amended petition.  The Court 
dismissed the remaining habeas allegations.  Claim Five of the 
petition alleges:  “Soering’s conviction should be reversed due 
to the prosecution’s withholding of Brady material from the 
defense at his original trial.” 
 
In December 1996, the habeas judge, who had presided over 
the criminal trial, conducted an evidentiary hearing on the 
issue presented.  In a June 1997 order, incorporating a 13-page 
memorandum opinion, the court determined the convict’s claim is 
without merit.  The matter is before us for review. 
 
Initially, the evidence adduced during the criminal trial 
will be summarized.  The murder victims were the parents of 
Elizabeth Haysom, Soering’s girlfriend and lover.  In 1984, 
Soering and Elizabeth were undergraduate students at the 
University of Virginia, both attending under academic 
scholarships.  A friendship between the pair developed into an 
infatuation.  Elizabeth’s parents opposed their daughter’s 
relationship with Soering; this infuriated him.  During this 
time, she also had “feelings” of “anger” as well as “resentment” 
and “hatred” toward her parents. 
 
During the latter part of 1984 and early 1985, Soering and 
Elizabeth began discussing “a lot of ideas about how [her 
parents] might die.”  On Friday, March 29, 1985, the students 
traveled in a rented vehicle from Charlottesville to Washington, 
D.C., and “checked into” a hotel. 
 
On Saturday, “it suddenly became real, we were going to 
conspire and commit murder,” according to Elizabeth, who was a 
 
2
prosecution witness at Soering’s trial.  The pair made elaborate 
plans to establish an alibi to cover Soering’s trip from 
Washington to her parents’ home for the purpose of killing them.   
He purchased a knife before he departed Washington alone on 
Saturday afternoon.  She remained, and walked around Washington 
in a drug-induced “haze.” 
 
Later that night, Elizabeth found Soering on a Washington 
street, near where they “agreed to meet,” sitting in the rented 
vehicle with a bloody bedspread “draped over him.”  He told her 
he had killed her parents. 
 
The victims’ bodies were discovered during the day on 
Wednesday, April 3.  Her body was found on the kitchen floor and 
his body was on the floor between the dining room and living 
room.  They had been stabbed in their torsos and their throats 
had been cut.  There were no signs of forced entry into the 
home.  Exterior lights were burning, but interior lights were 
not.  Efforts had been made to wipe footprints left in the blood 
at the scene.  All fingerprints at the scene had been left by 
known friends or visitors, except four sets that never were 
identified.  No murder weapon was ever found. 
 
No valuables had been removed from the home.  Silverware, 
cash, and jewelry in plain view had not been touched.  The 
contents of a liquor cabinet were undisturbed.  The Haysoms’ 
 
3
motor vehicles were parked outside and a set of car keys was 
found in the hallway. 
 
Subsequently, the police investigation focused on 
Elizabeth, who voluntarily furnished blood and hair samples, 
fingerprints, and footprints.  The police had learned about the 
pair’s rental of the vehicle and that the miles the car was 
driven far exceeded the round trip distance from Charlottesville 
to Washington.  In fact, the mileage was consistent with a trip 
from Charlottesville to Washington, Washington to Bedford and 
back, then from Washington to Charlottesville. 
 
The police were unable to contact Soering until October 
1985.  Initially, he refused to provide blood or hair samples, 
fingerprints, or footprints, but later agreed to meet 
investigators to provide the requested forensic information.    
Before the appointed time, however, Soering fled to Europe, 
leaving school and forfeiting scholarships that provided full 
tuition and expenses.  Shortly thereafter, Elizabeth fled and 
met Soering in Europe. 
 
In 1986, the Bedford police learned the pair had been 
arrested and were incarcerated in London on various fraud 
charges.  British police had searched the pair’s apartment and 
found documentary evidence linking them to the murders. 
 
During interrogation in jail in London, Soering confessed 
in detail on several occasions to having committed the murders.  
 
4
He said he had traveled alone from Washington to Bedford, 
leaving Elizabeth in Washington to establish an alibi for him.  
Upon arriving at the Haysoms’ home, he stated, he conversed with 
them over dinner at the dining room table, violence erupted, and 
he killed them both by stabbing and cutting their throats.  He 
demonstrated to the police the manner in which their throats 
were cut. 
 
Soering stated to the police that during the killings he 
cut two fingers of his left hand and that Mr. Haysom had struck 
him in the face.  A witness testified that, at the victims’ 
funeral, Soering had bandages on his fingers and a bruise on his 
face. 
 
Soering’s blood type proved to be Type “O,” the same type 
as unidentified blood found at the murder scene.  Neither the 
victims’ blood nor Elizabeth’s blood was Type “O.”  His 
fingerprints did not match any of the four sets of unidentified 
prints found at the scene. 
 
Soering testified at the criminal trial.  He denied any 
participation in the planning or commission of the murders.  He 
testified that Elizabeth left the hotel in the rented vehicle, 
telling him she had to procure some drugs while in Washington 
because she was being blackmailed by another student, her 
Charlottesville drug supplier, who threatened to tell her 
parents of her continued drug use.  According to Soering, 
 
5
Elizabeth returned to the hotel room after midnight, stating, “I 
have killed my parents.” 
 
Elizabeth pled guilty as an accessory before the fact to 
both murders.  She was sentenced to 90 years in prison. 
 
We turn to the evidence presented at the habeas hearing.  
The convict showed that, prior to the criminal trial, his 
attorney filed a comprehensive discovery motion for “any and all 
evidence or information within the possession, custody, or 
control” of the prosecution “which is or might arguably be 
exculpatory,” including information “which may tend to show that 
there are other individuals responsible for” the crimes. 
 
The focus of the 1996 evidentiary hearing was the 
testimony, presented on behalf of the convict, of former  
Bedford County Deputy Sheriff George Anderson.  Within a week of 
the Haysom murders, Anderson detained and questioned two men, 
William Shifflett and Robert Albright, who were walking or 
hitchhiking late at night on the Route 460 East bypass near 
Bedford.  The officer became suspicious of the men because he 
rarely had seen persons walking there late at night.  The men 
told Anderson they had been to Lynchburg “to see a girl” and 
were headed to Roanoke. 
 
Anderson directed each of the men to place the contents of 
his pockets on the hood of the patrol car, and then questioned 
each of them while the other sat in the rear of the car.  One of 
 
6
the men carried a small beige tablecloth and a small, empty, 
nylon travel bag.  Neither carried any large amount of money nor 
did there appear to be bloodstains on them or their belongings.  
There was no testimony that the tablecloth or bag were items 
missing from the Haysom home. 
 
Anderson reported by radio the encounter to the Bedford 
Sheriff’s Office and was told by a superior to release the men.  
Anderson discussed the incident the next day with another 
superior officer, who was involved in the Haysom investigation. 
 
Ten days to two weeks after this incident, Anderson noticed 
the brass end of an object protruding from the rear seat of his 
patrol car.  He found a Buck 110 folding knife.  The knife had 
not been among the belongings the two men produced when Anderson 
stopped them on the bypass.  Anderson did not recall that anyone 
else had been in the rear seat of his car after he stopped 
Shifflett and Albright, although he could not recall when, 
before the bypass incident, he previously had examined the seat. 
 
Prior to the habeas hearing, the knife Anderson discovered 
was subjected, pursuant to the convict’s request, to laboratory 
testing for traces of blood.  There was no evidence that any 
blood was found on the knife. 
 
The medical examiner who performed the Haysom autopsies 
testified that the blade of the knife was of such size and shape 
that it could have been the Haysom murder weapon, although he 
 
7
said it was difficult to be certain of that fact because he 
could not determine precisely the dimensions of the blade of the 
murder weapon from the wounds on the bodies.  The knife, a 
common type of folding knife, is readily available at retail 
stores. 
 
On the night of April 5, Albright and Shifflett stayed 
under a bridge in Roanoke.  The next day, in a drunken condition 
and after accosting and attempting to rob two persons, the duo 
met Marvin Millikin, a street person.  They forced Millikin at 
knife point to a field, made him disrobe, beat and kicked him, 
and took his wallet.  After leaving him in the field, they 
returned, stabbed him 26 times, and amputated his penis.  Later, 
they were convicted of Millikin’s murder. 
 
Deputy Anderson learned of the arrests of Albright and 
Shifflett for the Millikin murder and began to suspect they 
might have been involved in the Haysom murders.  He notified the 
Roanoke police of his suspicions. 
 
No evidence was presented that Albright or Shifflett 
admitted any connection with the Haysom murders, nor was there 
any evidence that Elizabeth Haysom ever met or had any 
connection with either of the men.  According to the record, the 
Roanoke police apparently did not make any connection between 
the Haysom and Millikin murders. 
 
8
 
During Soering’s prosecution, the Commonwealth never 
disclosed to the defense any circumstances of the Albright and 
Shifflett stop or the later discovery of the knife in Anderson’s 
patrol car. 
 
Upon review, the convict says there is no dispute the 
prosecution withheld evidence and no dispute “what the evidence 
was.”  He contends that the withheld evidence was exculpatory as 
a matter of law and that his convictions must be vacated. 
 
The theory of Soering’s defense was “that the crimes were 
committed by Elizabeth, with one or more accomplices.”  He 
argues, “It was established at the evidentiary hearing that the 
possibility of an accomplice to work with Elizabeth, and some 
suggestion as to who that might have been, was critically 
important to the defense of this case because of a jury’s 
natural reluctance to find that a child, even an adult child, 
could commit this brutal crime on her own parents.  This is even 
more true where, as here, the family involved was a ‘nice’ 
family, well known and respected, with money, educational 
benefits and social prominence.” 
 
He contends, “This evidence – concerning the presence of 
two men in the area of the crime, soon after the crime was 
committed, who were known criminals, indeed murderers, and who 
when stopped attempted to hide from authorities a knife which is 
consistent with being the murder weapon, and who [were] never 
 
9
interrogated about the Haysom crimes nor had their hair or blood 
samples compared with crime scene samples – was clearly 
exculpatory.”  We do not agree. 
 
“[S]uppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to 
an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence 
is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of 
the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”  Brady v. 
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).  Favorable evidence is 
material “only if there is a reasonable probability that, had 
the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the 
proceeding would have been different.  A ‘reasonable 
probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence 
in the outcome.”  United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 
(1985).  Accord Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433, 434 (1995).  
In other words, a petitioner must show that when the case is 
evaluated in the context of the entire record, including the 
omitted evidence, a jury would have entertained a reasonable 
doubt regarding petitioner’s guilt.  See Bagley, 473 U.S. at 
682; United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112-13 (1976).  Accord 
Kyles, 514 U.S. at 460 (Scalia, J., dissenting). 
 
Additionally, evidence that is inadmissible at trial is not 
“evidence” at all, for Brady purposes.  Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 
U.S. 1, 5-6 (1995).  Thus, it is not “reasonably likely” that 
 
10
disclosure of such information would result in a different 
outcome at trial.  Id. at 8. 
 
Urging denial of the habeas petition, the Attorney General 
contends that “the information concerning Albright and Shifflett 
would not have been admissible at Soering’s trial.”  Evidence 
proffered by an accused that merely suggests a third party may 
have committed the crime charged is inadmissible; only when the 
proffered evidence tends clearly to point to some other person 
as the guilty party will such proof be admitted.  Karnes v. 
Commonwealth, 125 Va. 758, 766, 99 S.E. 562, 565 (1919).  Accord 
Oliva v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 523, 527, 452 S.E.2d 877, 880 
(1995).  Although we have considerable doubt of the correctness 
of the convict’s argument on this issue, we will agree with him 
for the purpose of this discussion and assume, without deciding, 
that the evidence would have been admissible at his trial. 
 
We hold, however, that the convict has not established that 
material exculpatory evidence was withheld from his defense.  
Upon review of this entire record, we conclude there is no 
reasonable probability that, had the evidence in question been 
disclosed to the defense, the result of the criminal trial would 
have been different.  “The mere possibility that an item of 
undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might 
have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish 
‘materiality’ in the constitutional sense.”  Agurs, 427 U.S. at 
 
11
109-10.  At most, the convict has established only such “mere 
possibility.” 
 
For example, there is no connection whatever between 
Albright and Shifflett and the Haysom murders.  The convict only 
has proven that the men were present in the same county where 
the Haysoms were murdered near the time of the killings, and 
that the vagrants may have possessed a knife that may have been 
similar to the one used to kill the Haysoms.  As the habeas 
judge pointed out, “There are no confessions, no matching blood 
on the knife, no matching fingerprints, no stolen articles, no 
connection between these two men and Elizabeth Haysom . . . and 
no logical explanation as to why two drunken robbers and 
murderers would kill the Haysoms without taking valuables, 
vehicles and liquor.” 
 
Also, except for the stabbing of the victims, the Millikin 
and Haysom murders were dissimilar, as the habeas judge stated.  
The respective murders differed in motivation as well as method.  
The Haysom killings, committed earlier in time, involved 
slashing of the victims’ throats with severing of carotid 
arteries and jugular veins.  Millikin’s throat was stabbed, not 
slashed, and he was sexually disfigured, a circumstance not 
present in the Haysom crimes.  Albright and Shifflett were 
motivated by a desire to rob their victims.  The Haysom murders 
 
12
were not motivated by robbery; many valuable items in plain view 
were left intact in the Haysom home. 
 
Additionally, in order to entertain a reasonable doubt 
based on the theory that the Haysoms were murdered by Albright 
or Shifflett, or both, acting with Elizabeth, the jury would 
have to disregard the overwhelming evidence presented at 
Soering’s criminal trial that he alone committed the murders.  
For example, he confessed repeatedly in great detail, and the 
majority of those details fit the facts developed by the 
criminal investigation:  the slashing of the victims’ throats 
compatible with the manner he said he held the knife; the 
injuries he sustained during the violence at the time of the 
murders, which injuries were later observed at the funeral; the 
exterior lights left burning by the murderer controlled by a 
switch in a back bedroom, a location unknown to a stranger to 
the home like Soering, but known to a family member like 
Elizabeth; and documentary evidence (letters and diary entries) 
implicating him in the crimes, just to mention a few of the many 
circumstances consistent with his confessions.  Moreover, 
Soering had a motive to kill his lover’s parents, who opposed 
his relationship with their daughter.  And, his flight to Europe 
after avoiding the police, resulting in the forfeiture of 
valuable scholarships, is also consistent with his admitted 
guilt. 
 
13
 
In sum, the convict has failed to establish he is entitled 
to habeas relief.  Confidence in the outcome of his criminal 
trial has not been undermined. 
 
Therefore, the judgment of the habeas court will be 
affirmed and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be 
denied. 
Affirmed and writ denied. 
 
14