That court found that "only in the context of either a complete deprivation of discovery or resulting prejudice" does a due process violation occur. Some of the questions objected to were leading, some were not. Gary Allen Caughron Obituary (1963 - 2015) Poteau Daily News Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196-97. In Hinton, the defense attorney was "harried" through her own fault, while in this case counsel was "harried" by the action of the trial court. D. Paine, Tennessee Law of Evidence, 103.3 (2d ed. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S. Ct. 763, 766, 31 L. Ed. 2d 574 (1961), the Court said: Clancy, at 316, 81 S. Ct. at 648 quoting Jencks, supra, at 667, 77 S. Ct. at 1012-13 (citations omitted). When she returned to the bedroom, she saw the Defendant striking Jones's back with the pool stick. at 770). Our Court in interpreting Rule 26.2 has held that even in a capital case, the State is not required to produce witness statements until the conclusion of the witness's testimony on direct examination. 24-1-101, no one is automatically barred from testifying simply because of *538 age or mental status. A further complaint involves a bench conference at which the court urged the Defendant to get to the point before he exhausted the patience of the court and jury. The terry cloth strips around the victim's neck had been pulled so tightly that they had cut off the flow of blood to the victim's brain. [6] Whatever value there is in maintaining efficiency in the trial of criminal cases (and it is considerable under normal circumstances), efficiency must be assigned a low priority where procedural rights of an accused are at stake. [9] There is no way to know to what extent this aspect of April's testimony may have affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty. 2d 1304 (1959): Thus, federal law permits the courts to overlook Jencks violations only in the narrowest of circumstances:[7]. For this reason, it would be necessary to hold that they constitute "plain error" in order to avoid a finding of waiver on the defendant's part and grant relief on either ground. April and the Defendant, who was working on a nearby construction project, met on the covered portico (commonly referred to as "the porch") of Settler's Village almost every day. Tom Bentley, who worked on the Defendant's car sometime after the killing, testified that he had used pieces of blue terry cloth towel from the trunk of the Defendant's car as grease rags. *529 Charles W. Burson, Atty. The material consisted of "a stack of paper at least eight inches thick, including a thousand pages of testimony obtained from ten witnesses, a forty-five minute tape recording and other documents." April testified that she hated Jones because she had tried to separate her and the Defendant by going to her mother. 1980); State v. Nelson, 603 S.W.2d 158, 168 (Tenn. Crim. It points out the obvious that April Ward's testimony not only made her the prosecution's "linchpin witness," but also constituted virtually the entire case for the state. We find no error, although the relevance of this evidence is marginal. 3500, known from the time of its passage in 1957 as the Jencks Act. The majority "emphasize[s] that this case does not involve the denial of Rule 26.2 statements." There is sufficient corroboration; e.g., Jimmy Huskey's and Tom Bentley's testimony about the fabrics (blue terry cloth and lacy material) in the Defendant's possession; testimony of Defendant's appearance and behavior the morning after the murder; the presence of the turquoise ring at the victim's house; and Defendant's statements to his cell-mates, Roy Haynes, Bobby Floyd, and Tim McGaha. App. 729 F.2d at 260-61. Maryanne Garon - Associate Professor - LinkedIn 804. Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee - CourtListener.com Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee, 03C01-9707-CC-00301 (Tenn. Crim. Gary Caughron - James M Russ II - Connect Realty | ZoomInfo To use a colloquialism that summarizes the situation most descriptively, Caughron's attorneys were effectively "stone-walled" by state officials involved in the investigation and prosecution of this case. If this were a routine case, and if the majority's description of the problem posed for defense counsel in this case were more complete, one might not quibble with the decision to assign the matter to that legal limbo known as "trial court discretion." During the summer of 1988, Caughron himself gave law enforcement officers various statements. The first was his aunt, Gladys Green, who told how his mother and father had divorced when the Defendant was three or four years old. ." 3500 (1957), passed in response to the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S. Ct. 1007, 1 L. Ed. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d at 391. The Defendant had also talked to Huskey about tying up women during sex and said that "slapping them on the butt really turned him on.". App. However, they are treated in this opinion not as independent grounds for relief, but as due process violations that exacerbated the Jencks error in this case, making it obvious reversible error. App. Gary J. Aguirre is an American lawyer, former investigator with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and whistleblower . Despite assertions that he had been informed that the State had failed and refused to disclose certain material, Defendant never requested the court to examine any specific document or evidence. Today, for the first time, we address what constitutes a sufficient time to review Rule 26.2 statements. At his last interview, when confronted with falsehoods in his prior statements, Caughron became upset and walked out of the room. We find no reversible error in the court's conduct during McFadden's testimony. Also, the point that Defendant wished to make, i.e., that the footprint on the door was not Defendant's, was explored during the testimony of Sandra Lee Paltorah, a forensic scientist at the T.B.I. The Hinton court faulted the attorney for failing to seek "adequate time to make an informed tactical decision as to the use of the information contained in the [statements]," thereby producing "a harried trial attorney, attending to direct examination with one part of her consciousness, and with the *555 other rifling through the `massive Jencks material' in a hurried attempt to isolate and scan the relevant documents." Knoxville, Tennessee. April 29Los Angeles, CALong Story Short: Willie Nelson 90 at the Hollywood Bowl (SOLD OUT) April 30Los Angeles, CALong Story Short: Willie Nelson 90 at . George Edward Hardin. 1976). In Dr. Pareau's opinion, Caughron had received inadequate parenting, and there had been no consistency in his relationships. Michael Caughron , 59. [5] Likewise, it took the author of this opinion a full hour to read rapidly through the statements of April Ward, without taking notes or marking the statements for comparison purposes. There was, in short, no violation of Rule 26.2 and thus no error, in the majority's view. According to the Advisory Commission Comments: "The language of Rule 26.2 is substantially identical to the language in Rule 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record reflects that the state relied on it in arguing aggravating circumstances during the penalty phase of the proceedings. At the hearing, the trial judge asked Ward some general questions, some questions about how she was doing in school and how her counseling was proceeding, and some questions about her awareness of her testimony. 1999) Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee Filed: February 5th, 1999 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: None known Docket Number: 03C01-9707-CC-00301 Author: Joseph Tipton Download Original The two of them left the shops with Yoakum and went to April's mother's house, where the Defendant bathed. 2d 603 (1967). The Defendant alleges that the trial court erred in refusing to allow introduction of an extrajudicial statement made by one Kenny Phillips, an inmate at one of the state prison facilities, who was called as a witness for the defense. The lawyer was due back in court at 9:00 a.m. the next morning, approximately 13 hours later, ready for trial. Phillips had given a statement to law enforcement officials on July 15, 1987, in which he stated that two persons, a man and a woman who were not the defendant and April Ward, had approached him about robbing and killing a woman in Pigeon Forge, possibly the victim Dorothy Ann Jones, although Phillips did not give the woman's name. He was a member of Maples Branch Baptist Church and was retired from the City of Pigeon Forge. The verdict and judgment are supported by material evidence, and the sentence of death is in no way arbitrary or disproportionate. Jones instructed him to stay away. There would be little logic in requiring statement production only at trial, and not at pretrial hearings where testimony as to the facts of the case is being given under oath. The courts also consider the other information available to defense counsel, such as pretrial statements, and they look for such indicia of prejudice as requests for recesses and poorly prepared cross-examinations. Statements that Caughron made to friends and associates were incriminating to some extent, but for the most part were brief and ambiguous. Defendant requested no further action and did not request the court to declare a mistrial. What is not *551 included in the majority opinion is a recitation of the procedural background of the trial, putting in context the "Jencks motion" made by defense counsel at various points during the proceedings. See, e.g., Bryant v. State, 539 S.W.2d 816, 819 (Tenn. Crim. The trial court felt that the Defendant had failed to exercise due diligence in examining the door. [2] T.C.A. Based on this evidence, presented over four days of trial, the jury found the Defendant not guilty of felony-murder, robbery, and larceny, but guilty of premeditated first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, and assault with intent to commit rape. Nevertheless, if defense counsel had been given an opportunity to make effective use of the material, that is, time to review those contradictory statements and time to prepare for April Ward's cross-examination based on what was contained in those statements, the due process problem in this case might have been avoided. A purse and its contents lay strewn in the hall. The progenitor of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2 is the 1957 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Jencks v. United States, 77 S. Ct. 1007, 353 U.S. 657, 1 L. Ed. In 1940, in the year that Shelby Caughron was born, in July, Billboard published its first Music Popularity Chart. I believe that this case should be remanded for a new trial because of unwarranted interference with the defendant's right to due process by the police, by the prosecution, and by the trial court. T.R.E. Gary Allen Caughron, 51, of Cameron died Tuesday, June 2, 2015, in Fort Smith, Ark. Palermo, supra, at 355-6, 79 S. Ct. at 1226-7. In the past, Gary has also been known as Gary L Caughorn, Gary L Aughron and Gary L Caughron. It is well-settled that the propriety, scope, manner and control of the examination of witnesses is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge, subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion. Unable to complete the sex act with Jones, the Defendant suggested sex with April. 2d 537 (1969). When a prosecutor deliberately conceals a material witness and the defense is thereby prejudiced, a due process violation results. Carter v. Rafferty, 826 F.2d 1299, 1308 (3d Cir.1987). 855 S.W.2d 526 (1993) | Cited 4 times. The Defendant says that the court was disparaging the Defendant's evidence. See also Boone v. Paderick, 541 F.2d 447 (4th Cir.1976); United States v. Sutton, 542 F.2d 1239 (4th Cir.1976). has since been changed to "Every person is presumed competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute.". 1984). The jury, which had not begun deliberations, was called in; and the trial judge informed them that he was striking the charge on the first aggravating circumstance and inserting in place of it the instruction that "[t]he murder was especially cruel in that it involved torture or depravity of mind." [The statements are] not that different [from each other]." Such statements may only be obtained under the limited provisions of existing law now contained in Rule 6(k)(2). Caughron told another prisoner, Roy Haynes, that on the night of the murder, he and his girlfriend had driven to a house on Cove Road or Cove Mill Road (the victim lived on Cole Drive) in Pigeon Forge and that from that point "he couldn't remember nothing he was so messed up on cocaine." Gary Robert Caughron was born on month day 1933, at birth place, Missouri, to Edward Wright Caughron and Alleen Inez Caughron (born Long). No further mention was made of the episode until the next morning, when counsel indicated he would like to address it later that day; but no action was taken until just before the jurors began deliberations, when Van Helton, counsel's assistant, testified that the juror who had made the statement was Roy Hodge, an ex-constable, and that his manner was aggravated and "put out." This upset Caughron, who told April Ward that he would like to catch Ann Jones "out one night" and "slice her throat." Harold Stoffell, a minister, testified that the Defendant had accepted the word of God, was respectful and was "the finest young prisoner I've ever saw." This is one of the most brutal and sadistic killings this Court has reviewed. After drinking the blood, April said, she went to the bathroom to throw up, but did not. Given the centrality of April Ward's testimony, the inherent unreliability which attaches to that testimony by virtue of the half-dozen contradictory statements she made over a five-month period prior to trial, and the trial court's failure to grant counsel a reasonable period of time in which to capitalize upon those various pretrial statements, it appears that the Rule 26.2(d) error in this case was prejudicial. 2255"). Sometime within the following two or three weeks, Christy Jones Scott discovered a silver, turquoise and coral ring with a thunderbird design lying on the ground beside her mother's truck, which was still parked at her mother's house. 369 F.2d at 189. He also denied being in a fight in a bar in Newport and told different stories about how he had gotten scratched and bloodied up. Finally, April testified, Caughron insisted that they drink some of the victim's blood from shot glasses that he produced for the occasion. The second best result is Gary Ray Caughron age 40s in Springfield, MO. See Graves v. State, 489 S.W.2d 74, 81 (Tenn. Crim. Gary June Caughron Registration Details Last Known Address: NECX PO 5000, MOUNTAIN CITY, TN 37683 Gary June Caughron - Registered Sex Offender Criminal Record of Gary June Caughron DOB: 1961-07-28 Race: White Sex: Male Eyes: Hazel Height: 5 ft 4 in Hair: Black Weight: 180 lbs. 2d 104 (1972); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 87 L. Ed. denied, 439 U.S. 873, 99 S. Ct. 207, 58 L. Ed. 804(b)(5). The most Caughron families were found in USA in 1880. The police made little progress in the investigation of the Jones homicide during the year after the homicide. STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, In judging whether a defendant has been denied due process by the state's directive to a potential witness not to talk to defense counsel, the courts use an analysis much like that used in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 148, 458 S.W.2d 627 (1970). Gary Caughron works at James M Russ II - Connect Realty, which is a Real Estate company. April also said that she had told the Defendant what Jones had done. 2d 215 (1963), or Rule 16, T.R.Cr.P. Gary Caughronwas born on 03/07/1955 and is 67 years old. However, the Tennessee rule applies to all pretrial motions under Rule 12(b). It must be clearly shown that a trial court has abused its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance before that decision will be disturbed on appeal. He was an oil field inspec April further testified that after her mother went to sleep, she cut a blue terry cloth towel into strips and waited for Caughron to arrive. The expectations placed on defense counsel in this case were completely unrealistic, and they resulted in a deprivation of due process with respect to his client. Troy Gene Caughron, age 81 of Pigeon Forge, passed away Saturday, December 20, 2014. Michael Caughron currently lives in Port Lavaca, TX; in the past Michael has also lived in Charleston SC. As a result, defense counsel was not only prevented from gathering information that could have been developed from interviewing April Ward. 2d 983 (1983). In the early afternoon of July 11, 1987, Christy Jones Scott, the daughter of the victim, 42-year-old Ann Robertson Jones, discovered her mother's partially clothed body lying facedown on a bed in her home in Pigeon Forge. The most serious episode of interjection occurred when the trial judge literally took over the questioning of the witness. The cause may be different, but the result is the same. The phone lines to the house had been cut. We do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant Defendant's motion for a continuance. Gina Caughron in TN - Address & Phone Number | Whitepages Beginning in June 1988 with the first statement she gave police, and ending with the sixth and last one she gave them in November 1988, April Ward made a total of six pretrial statements, no two of which were completely consistent with each other. Gary Caughron, 67 - Capitan | Free Public Reputation Profile - MyLife.com When the time came for Phillips to testify, he refused because, he said, his earlier statements were lies concocted to get a reward offered for any evidence that would help solve Jones's murder. They developed several leads, but none of them panned out. The police department and the district attorney's office clearly understood April Ward's significance as a prosecution witness. ROY CAUGHRON Obituary (2013) - Knoxville, TN - Knoxville News Sentinel In reaching this conclusion, I do not wish to minimize in any way the wholly reprehensible nature of the homicide committed in this case, against an innocent and ultimately helpless victim. Records show that Sharon has one phone number, (919) 242-4415 (Carolina Tel and Tel Co , LLC) denied, 396 U.S. 865, 90 S. Ct. 143, 24 L. Ed. Gary June CAUGHRON, Appellant. Thus, a reviewing court must consider the materiality of the withheld evidence in light of the other evidence presented. Ogle said that he had turned over the package of witness statements to his investigator to review overnight, and that he had been able to read only one of April Ward's statements in the interim. A due process violation requires more than the suppression of significant exculpatory evidence, however. Carl R. Ogle, Jr., Jefferson City, for appellant. Thus, only a part of a witness' statement may be relevant to the hearing. lab, who was Defendant's first witness. One time when asked who had killed Ann Jones, Defendant stated, "Whoever done it needs help." But, the production of Jencks material without adequate time to read and make use of it undoubtedly constitutes the functional equivalent of a denial. [2] Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 97 S. Ct. 837, 51 L. Ed. Dr. Blake concluded that Jones had died as a result of asphyxiation while unconscious. In Nichols v. State, 581 So. Although the complete non-disclosure of significant exculpatory evidence often makes an easy case for a due process violation, delayed disclosure requires an inquiry into whether the delay prevented the defense from using the disclosed material effectively in preparing and presenting the defendant's case. Moreover, it has been held that the failure of an attorney to seek a recess for the purpose of reviewing recently proffered Jencks material (instead the defense attorney tried to read through the documents while direct examination was in progress) constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, yet another Sixth Amendment deprivation. A careful reading would consume much more than the two-hour estimate given in the majority opinion. Put simply, the price of saving less than a half-hour of trial time turned out to be "penny wise but pound foolish.". Again defense counsel indicated he would address any problem later but apparently failed to do so. This advance production satisfied the State's duty under Rule 26.2 and avoided the needless delay of the trial. 2d 100 (1974). She said that the Defendant instructed her to bring a towel and a knife "to gut" Ann Jones. Bowman v. State, 598 S.W.2d 809, 812 (Tenn. Crim. Paltorah testified that the print on the door was consistent with a smooth-soled shoe as opposed to the tennis shoe worn by the Defendant. Moreover, appellate judges are in a poor position to second-guess counsel on the question of whether a recess to permit full utilization of the statements in this case would have been efficacious. denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103 S. Ct. 770, 74 L. Ed. Hence, under Tennessee law, as under federal law, a prosecutor's refusal to produce the statements prior to direct examination cannot be held to be prejudicial error, even though it is often extolled as "the better practice." That court noted that the witnesses were "particularly vulnerable to suggestion and anxious not to offend the prosecutors" because they were concerned that they, too, could be indicted. Nevertheless, the trial judge not only forced defense counsel to begin his cross-examination of April Ward at that late hour, but he also failed to recess until cross-examination was completed, some considerable period of time later that evening. According to the state's forensic pathologist, Dr. Cleland Blake, Jones had suffered several "blunt traumatic contusions" to her head. Ward testified that she and Caughron also sat on the floor and drank Jones' blood from shot glasses. John Wesley Caughron in MyHeritage family trees (Caughron Web Site) John Wesley Caughron in MyHeritage family trees (Hudson-Good Family) view all Immediate Family William B Caughron father Eliza A Caughron mother Elizabeth Ann Morris sister Emily Frances Wood sister Sarah Isabell Gooch sister Robert Lee Caughron brother Martha Jane Littleton sister On the allegations regarding the need to examine the bedroom door, the Defendant sought to show that the footprint on the door was larger than the Defendant's would have been. Judy Caughron OfficialUSA.com Records When court resumed the next morning at 9:00 a.m., the defendant's lead attorney, Carl R. Ogle, told the trial judge even before the first witness was called that he appreciated having received copies of the witnesses' statements the night before, but that he had not had a chance to review all the material that had been turned over to him. Sharon is sixty years old. In State v. Tanner, 175 W. Va. 264, 332 S.E.2d 277, 279 (1985), the Court held: "The question of whether the error was harmless or prejudicial hinges upon whether there was a substantial discrepancy between the contents of the prior statement or report and the witness's testimony during trial.". 804, Advisory Commission Comments. After a recess, during which the jury went to lunch, the judge informed counsel that after reflection he had concluded that he should change the charge to conform more to the language of T.C.A. 2d 43 (1979). 1971). Defendant has not done this and we find no error. The record does not support any allegation that the State has failed to comply with its duties under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. at 41. The Defendant argues that questioning jurors about their beliefs on the death penalty biases the jury toward a finding of guilt and acceptance of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, 8 and 9, of the Tennessee Constitution. 378. State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 359 (Tenn. 1982). At the beginning of trial the Defendant asked the court to inspect the files in camera to look for any possible exculpatory evidence. A list of the contradictions in the six statements and the development of a strategy for their effective use on cross-examination would, of course, take even longer. Under caselaw interpreting this statute, discovery of statements by witnesses other than the defendant was not permitted. Blausen Medical is a leading provider of illustration, animation and simulation for Health Care and related industries, providing . In D. Paine, Tennessee Law of Evidence, 611.6 (2nd ed. The State asserts, correctly under T.R.A.P. See State v. West, 767 S.W.2d 387 (Tenn. 1989); State v. O'Guinn, 709 S.W.2d 561 (Tenn. 1986); State v. Alley, 776 S.W.2d 506 (Tenn. 1989). Gen., Nashville, Al Schmutzer, Jr., Dist. 2d 82; or where the statement is not exculpatory and there was no advantage to the government in non-production, United States v. Principe, 499 F.2d 1135 (1st Cir.1974). In United States v. Darwin, 757 F.2d 1193 (11th Cir.1985), the Eleventh Circuit faced a situation in which the government had disclosed impeachment evidence after a witness had testified. Second, despite the trial court's assessment of the statements in question as "not that complex," "not that different" from one another, and containing "nothing worthwhile, relevant or germane," a review of April Ward's statements demonstrates clearly that they were a powerful source of ammunition with which to impeach her testimony, had defense counsel been permitted the time necessary to review them and prepare his cross-examination in light of their content. Author of the National Bestseller INCLUSIFY. His stepfather, for example, had beaten him and humiliated him for bedwetting.
Does Park Lane Jewelry Tarnish, John Peel Protein Pudding Recipe, Articles G