Here’s another excerpt from Söring’s book (pp. 171-72, my quick translation):
I am aware that most people wave it away wearily when a convicted double murderer complains about the injustice of the system. Nevertheless, I often talk to Germans about the subject, because I have had the experience that most of my compatriots do not know how the legal system works in the USA in general and in Virginia in particular. When I then explain it on the basis of my case, they are amazed to the point of disbelief that such conditions can exist in a highly developed Western democracy.
Remember — because I was convicted, the entire American justice system is corrupt.
What stunned them most was the very selection of the judge who presided over my trial. William Sweeney was the man’s name, he had been friends with the brother of the murdered Nancy Haysom for forty years and greeted him in the courtroom by his first name. He had also met both victims at a party when they moved to Bedford County in the early 1980s. Under the eyes of his childhood friend, [Judge Sweeney] was now supposed to determine ex officio whether the victims had raised their murderess themselves or whether the evil had come into their house through the stranger. It was in his hands to decide whether after the terrible deaths of two people also the disgrace of parents being murdered by their child would be brought upon the family. When my defense attorney filed a motion to recuse, Sweeney denied it.
I have already refuted this claim on this blog over and over, but let’s go back one more time briefly. Richard Neaton filed a motion to disqualify the judge based on the judge’s relationship with Risque Benedict, the brother of murder victim Nancy Haysom. On February 7, 1990, judge Sweeney conducted a hearing on the defense’s motion to disqualify him for bias. For the first 54 pages of the hearing, defense counsel, prosecutor Jim Updike, and the judge addressed the legal precedents on judicial disqualification, including Stamper v. Commonwealth, Deahl v. Winchester Dept. of Social Services, and Stockton v. Commonwealth.
After this lengthy legal back and forth, the judge gave sworn testimony as an officer of the court as follows, beginning on page 54 of the trial transcript:
All right, thank you, Mr. Neaton. I don’t really have any prepared comments, so the statement that I make is based on my best recollection. I could be wrong in some of these recollections, but have no hesitation at alI in disclosing my connections here…. as far as my connection with the victim’s family, I did know Risque Benedict, who is a brother of Nancy. He did go to VMI two years, but didn’t graduate with me. Risque and I have never discussed this case. I think he’s made a particular point of not discussing it with me, and I have. Risque has not lived in this state a great deal of the time, I think now he’s in California, and I expect I may have seen him four or five times since graduation, I’m not sure, but he’s not someone I see on a regular basis. I think a lot of him, but he’s not a very, very close personal friend, but certainly I know Risque Benedict and I would not deny that.
I knew Nancy Haysom mainly because of Risque. The statement in the defense allegation that I was a close friend of the Haysoms is simply not true; I was not, as anybody in this area who knows anything about it knows. I have never been in the home of — the Haysom home. I did attend a fairly large dinner party, as I recall, on one occasion at Mrs. Abbott’s, and I really do not recall ever seeing Elizabeth or Jens Soering, ever.
Now it may be that they were there, it may be that they were somewhere where I was, but I really don’t remember it. I could not describe either one of them, and I’m sure I would not have recognized either one had they come into the room, because I didn’t know them. I only met Derek Haysom that one occasion to my knowledge, and that was at the party which has been mentioned at the Abotts’; that’s the only time I ever met him.
The Haysoms have never been in our house for any social engagements and we were never in theirs. I’m trying to think of anything else. But it did give me some concern prior to the Haysom case, because I’m not a complete stranger to the victim’s family and it gives me some concern now, Mr. Neaton, and I might say that I respect your right to file the motion that you have filed. I’m professional enough not to have any malice toward you or the defendant because of it. I’ve been on the bench about 24 years, I guess, and I think I have developed the capacity to not have feelings of that kind, I hope I have.
I must admit, though, that there have been some times here this morning when I felt that I was on trial, rather than Mr. Soering. You know, judges don’t get to testify, we just have to take it sometimes, but that’s a part of the job, and I would not be making these statements, except I think it’s necessary to make these statements in view of the defense counsel’s request that I do. But I think that’s it, clearly and simply.
Now I think you have raised some serious questions about recusal, Mr.
Neaton, and I think they deserve serious consideration on my part. I cannot rule on this matter today from the bench, I need to go back and give this matter some serious mature thought. I need to read some of these cases that have been cited to me, because it’s a question of law as much as a question of my own conscience . And I’m not real sure how I will decide on this.
The judge then went on to discuss how his recusal, if he decided to recuse himself, might affect Soering’s right to a speedy trial.
Here we see the cynical, calculating face of a corrupt judge scheming to deprive Söring of any chance at justice. Right?
Ultimately, after reading the above cases, Judge Sweeney decided that under Virginia law, he was not obliged to disqualify himself, because he did not have a close personal relationship with any of the trial parties. He had met the victims only once, fleetingly, at a party. His relationship with Risque Benedict encompassed meeting him only “four or five times” over a period of 41 years: From 1949, when he graduated from VMI, to 1990, the time of the trial. 41 years. Sweeney’s decision was later upheld on appeal by judges who read the record and found no evidence of bias.
Söring was represented for decades by skilled and aggressive lawyers who called every aspect of this conviction into question. These lawyers were joined later by a small army of investigators. None of these people has the slightest hesitation in criticizing the Virginia justice system. All of them wanted to overturn the conviction of Jens Söring, and proving that Judge Sweeney gave false or misleading evidence about his knowledge of the Haysoms would have immediately led to Söring’s conviction being overturned. Instantly.
Over 30 years, during which all of these people tried to find out anything which would disprove Judge Sweeney’s sworn testimony, they found nothing.
Judge Sweeney was permitted by Virginia law to make the first decision about whether he should recuse himself — a decision which he knew would be scrutinized on appeal. He decided that he was not obliged to recuse himself, because the facts did not warrant it. He was not a family friend of the Haysoms. His decision was upheld on appeal. Sweeney’s judicial career was by all accounts free of any major scandal.
Why Söring is still attacking this man, by all accounts an upright and honorable judge, four years after Judge Sweeney’s death?
Legally he did nothing wrong and Soering’s trial was conducted correctly and fairly.
However in an english court, I’m pretty sure he would have had to recuse himself.
If we look at Haysom’s inordinately harsh sentence, in return for cooperating with the court and his letter to the parole board, reccomending that she serve a very lengthy period before release, then I think there is evidence of personal bias.
Was it not in poor taste that the judge knew the family personally? Or that the book “Beyond Reason” was being sold on the steps before his trial? Both seem unfair, the latter especially so. I think that he should have been tried in a different state most likely
Die Sache liegt doch ziemlich auf der Hand. Söring hatte schon vor seinem Prozess Kontakt zu deutschen Anwälten. D. h. ihm wurde früh gleichzeitig ein deutsches Rechtsverständnis vermittelt. Biased und nicht ganz honorable war zudem, dass Sweeney sich in einem Interview zu einer vorverurteilenden Aussage hinreissen liess. Das zusammengefasst mit der Tatsache, dass die Jury aus dem Nachbarort kam, und Englade seinen Roman Beyond Reason vor dem Gericht anbot ist eine Sache, die im juristischen Deutschland sicherlich nur mit einem unterstrichenden “NoGo” versehen würde und höchstwahrscheinlich von jedem deutschen Gericht in einer richterlichen Befangenheit endet. Können Sie das bestätigen Herr Hammel?
Die Rolle des Richters im U.S. System ist eine völlig andere, als im deutschen Strafverfahren: In Deutschland fällt der / die Richter das Urteil, in den USA ist der “judge” lediglich eine Art Moderator der Verhandlung.
Aus diesem Grund können die Anforderungen an einen Richter hinsichtlich Befangenheit in den USA auch niedriger sein und sind auch niedriger.
Söring wird jeden attackieren, der ihn nicht für unschuldig hält; das ist eben seine Lebenslüge von der er scheinbar nicht zurück kann. Schade für ihn.
I don’t speak or read German without labor. I was curious what CRIMEKLAUS is saying here and have pieced it together that he thinks Ken Englade’s book’ Beyond Reason’ had something to do with the juridical process in the Soering case. It did not. It was not “offered in front of the court’, if that can be construed to be an appropriate translation. Englade wrote his book from early interviews with London Metropolitan Police, from his knowledge of Atlanta, where he lived at the time, and from videos of EH’s trial. (He didn’t understand that she was not about drugs.) He then showed up at Bedford as the trial was either beginning or already under way and gave interviews to the press. This had nothing to do with the jury’s knowledge of the case. It was about selling books. The jury’s knowledge came out of the witness box. As to the question of having a jury come in from a neighboring county by bus , as I recall starting off each morning from Lovingston, in Nelson county, on Route 29, a much- travelled road for me, there was nothing at all particularly unusual about this. That whole question was argued as to television and news coverage. The defense wanted more but got something.
What a lot of people don’t realize is that this trial was very well done. Judge Sweeney remains, as far as I am concerned, one of the finest, one of the most impressive Virginians of his time. He should have gotten VMI’s New Market medal. He and Mrs. Massie are to me the two heroes of this whole sad. utterly insane story. You need to understand–Elizabeth and Jens had set their minds and intellects to murderous evil. They really had. I have no doubt at all about this. Elizabeth seems to have been stopped. Her brothers’ children had time to grow up. Apparently they have accepted her as one of their own. An aunty with a mysterious past. Jens Soering has not been stopped. Again and again I have wondered: is he insane? I asked Scotland yard that question. They said yes, there were moments when they seriously considered that he was mad. Soering was telling them that he would talk until he thought it was appropriate that he stop. He was then asked: But what if Elizabeth is asked the same questions in another interview (at which he would not have been present, of course) on that same issue or issues, and keeps on talking, revealing things he does not wish to be revealed. Soering replied that she would stop at the same point that he did. He was then asked, how could that be? How could she know when he had stopped? Soering replied that he and Elizabeth were one and the same person… She would know.
Then I look at what Soering is trying to do now, there is this nagging thought; isn’t this just as crazy as choosing your life’s partner by killing her parents? They were not without ways out of her family problems. So there was aa fail here. like we now all know, but then he grew up, right? Well, what about now? How could he now ever find a real woman, get married, have a family, and all the while keep the whole conviction for a heinous crime constantly in the forefront of things, up in the bright lights, lectures and television, just an oldtimey coupla’ nasty murders as a part of the ongoing daily routine? Who needs that? (‘ Poppa, they said at school after your last podcast….’ ) How could there be a normal married family life? What woman could stand this? What happened needs to be forgotten as much as it can be. ‘ Jenslet’ –as she called him– needs to disappear, be forgotten, change his name, get a day job, write under an assumed name… go to Argentina. Something different.