Detective Bean did testify that on August 25, 1988, when he asked Defendant why he attempted to kill himself after Davenport had initially talked with him about Jones's murder, Defendant replied that he was depressed and had a lot on his mind. United States v. Missler, 414 F.2d 1293, 1303-1304 (4th Cir.1969) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Troy Gene Caughron (1933-2014) - Find a Grave Memorial His aunt testified that, on the Friday night after he bought a green and white Oldsmobile, he came to his grandmother's house around 11 or 12 o'clock and went to bed. This description matched that of the ring Christy Jones Scott had found in her mother's driveway after the killing. He raises numerous issues in this appeal; but, after careful review of the entire record and the law, we find these issues to be without merit. A due process violation requires more than the suppression of significant exculpatory evidence, however. STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, 1981). Gary June CAUGHRON, Appellant. Crime Laboratory personnel. The FBI developed no forensic evidence implicating Caughron, despite extensive testing on fingerprints, shoeprints, blood and other fluids, and fibers. [Emphasis added.] View the profiles of people named Gary Caughron. denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103 S. Ct. 770, 74 L. Ed. Another court recognized the potential for a due process violation when the state advised witnesses that they "couldn't or shouldn't" give statements to defense counsel. As a result, defense counsel was forced to begin cross-examination under circumstances amounting to a deprivation of Rule 26.2 statements that were rightfully his to inspect. 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." 39-13-204(d), specifically grants the State the right of closing. 1980); see also State v. Taylor, 669 S.W.2d 694, 698-700 (Tenn. Crim. In the package were over 100 pages of typewritten and handwritten materials, comprising the statements of 20 different persons. Atty., Sevierville, for appellee. When the trial judge responded *552 that he was "powerless to require the Attorney General to do something the rules and the law do not require," that is, to order early production of the statements, Ogle made the following, thoroughly reasonable response: The trial judge denied defense counsel's request for a recess on the ground that the "material is not that complex. Like the Tennessee rule, the Jencks Act and the federal rule require not only that the defendant be furnished with the prior statements of witnesses following direct examination, but also that defense counsel be afforded a reasonable opportunity to examine those statements and prepare for cross-examination based on their contents. I am authorized to say that Chief Justice REID joins in this opinion. 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. He also objects to Cruze's testimony that the Defendant "sneaked around" her house for some period of time after the murder. Over the Defendant's objection the trial court allowed the State to recall the victim's daughter, Christy Jones Scott, to testify that her mother owned a collection of shot glasses and a pink Oral B toothbrush. The law is well-settled that prospective witnesses do not belong to either party, and for this reason neither side should suggest that a witness refrain from talking to opposing counsel. The Gregory court, therefore, found that the state had prejudiced the defendant's pre-trial preparation and thereby deprived him of a fair trial. Maryanne Garon - Associate Professor - LinkedIn 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. App. The defendant also took a statement to this effect from Phillips. The verdict and judgment are supported by material evidence, and the sentence of death is in no way arbitrary or disproportionate. Thus, only a part of a witness' statement may be relevant to the hearing. Hinton, supra, at 780. [4] As to the remainder of Rule 26.2, subsections (b) and (c) set out the procedure for determining whether the entire statement of a witness, or only part of it, is producible; subsection (f) requires application of the rule to pretrial hearings in the criminal court; and subsection (g) defines what constitutes a statement under the rule. 264, 195 So. 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. PDF Supreme Court of Tennessee State List for Permission to Appeal Style When defense counsel appeared to be developing this theory by an unnecessarily detailed examination of the forensic scientist, the trial court began interrupting to curtail what it considered irrelevant and unnecessary testimony. To ask in addition that he read over 100 pages of witness *553 statements, including 64 pages of April Ward's statements, make a study of the many inconsistencies revealed in those statements, and devise a strategy for cross-examination based on his review, is simply unreasonable. These facts undeniably satisfy the definition of depravity of mind in State v. Williams, 690 S.W.2d at 529, and illustrate a "consciousness materially more `depraved' than that of any person guilty of murder." The two of them left the shops with Yoakum and went to April's mother's house, where the Defendant bathed. (Another witness, Vicky Worth, testified that she had seen the Defendant drinking beer and smoking marijuana at a restaurant around 10 or 11 o'clock that night.) See, e.g., Freeman v. State of *546 Georgia, 599 F.2d 65, 69 (5th Cir.1979), cert. 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 5249 HWY 67W MOUNTAIN CITY, TN 37683. Where a juror is not legally disqualified or there is no inherent prejudice, the burden is on the Defendant to show that a juror is in some way biased or prejudiced. 2d 856 (1982), a state trooper instructed three witnesses, the correctional *547 officers present after a prison assault, not to discuss the case with the defense attorney. The police department and the district attorney's office clearly understood April Ward's significance as a prosecution witness. 1983), cited by Defendant, only indicates that an in camera inspection is necessary once it has been shown that there is material producible under Rule 16, in that case Jencks material. The court in the present case, however, was unusually active in directing the form that questioning should take. 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. Jencks caused some controversy in the months after it was announced, centering on fears that it would force government prosecutors to turn over investigatory files, in their entirety, upon defense demand. Again defense counsel indicated he would address any problem later but apparently failed to do so. In turn, he denied knowing the victim, denied any involvement in her death, and denied his actions the day after the killing. After further discussion, during which the prosecution argued against further delay, the trial judge finally allowed counsel a ten-minute recess, which actually stretched into 16 minutes. App. His fingerprints were not found in the house. He reminded the trial judge that he had not received the package of statements until after court adjourned the previous night. Bentley testified that the rags matched the towelling that he was shown at trial, which had been tied around the victim's body. [1] This new production rule was initially included in Rule 16, which otherwise governs pretrial discovery and inspection, despite the fact that it involved "discovery" during trial and not before. When asked why he had tried to kill himself after one of the interrogation sessions with police, he said that "he was depressed and had a lot on his mind." 148, 458 S.W.2d 627 (1970). Gary R Caughron, (618) 344-4510, 1891 Luehmann Ln, Granite City, IL Furthermore, the court's actions did not reflect the trial court's views on the Defendant's innocence or its opinion of the merit of Defendant's proof. The record shows that juror Jerry McGill was related to State's witness John Brown by marriage. 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. Put simply, the price of saving less than a half-hour of trial time turned out to be "penny wise but pound foolish.". App. The sentence will be carried out as provided by law on the 10th day of August, 1993, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or by other proper authority. Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee - CourtListener.com Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee, 03C01-9707-CC-00301 (Tenn. Crim. When she returned to the bedroom, she saw the Defendant striking Jones's back with the pool stick. April later testified that after the Defendant hit Jones several times with the pool stick, Jones fell across her bed, became silent and stopped moaning. The physical and psychological demands on an attorney in trial, especially a criminal trial involving a capital offense, are heavy. As a result, defense counsel was not only prevented from gathering information that could have been developed from interviewing April Ward. Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 100 S. Ct. 1759, 1767, 64 L. Ed. In 1940, in the year that Shelby Caughron was born, in July, Billboard published its first Music Popularity Chart. Another interjection concerned McFadden's examination regarding whether the door was knocked off its hinges and has already been addressed in Section IV. After looking at a newspaper article mentioning the homicide, the Defendant told Haynes that he thought his girlfriend was "snitching" on him. When Bentley had asked the Defendant why he wanted to paint the car, Caughron replied, "Well, the lady that got killed, somebody might recognize it and I need to paint it. The second episode occurred when State's witness Tom Diddly recognized one of the jurors as the owner of the wrecker service that had towed Defendant's car when the witness worked on it. Noting the conclusions of the Seventh, Tenth, Third and Eighth Circuits, that court held that "[t]he point in the trial when a disclosure is made is not in itself determinative . Her skull had been fractured and the cartilage in her nose displaced by the beating. In Tennessee the right to inspect pretrial statements of a witness called to testify at trial, for the purpose of effectively cross-examining that witness, did not exist prior to the adoption of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure in July 1978. But, he did not cross-examine her with regard to the details of *557 those statements, perhaps as a matter of strategy, but more likely from ignorance of their contents. The evidence was relevant because of Ward's testimony about drinking the victim's blood from a shot glass and Cruze's testimony about the Defendant's pink toothbrush. The photographs and the videotape taken at the murder scene are highly probative, in that they show the condition of the body and clarify oral testimony. On cross-examination, however, she conceded that Caughron was not insane and could conform his conduct to the dictates of the law. Gammon v. State, 506 S.W.2d 188, 190 (Tenn. Crim. George Edward Hardin. At sentencing the trial court instructed as an aggravating circumstance: "The defendant allowed the victim to be treated with exceptional cruelty during the commission of the offense." The woman was bound, beaten and strangled with cloth strips. You're all set! In United States v. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., 655 F. Supp. For example, in Kines v. Butterworth, 669 F.2d 6 (1st Cir.1981), cert. He pointed out that he and his co-counsel had had to consult with their client and his family before leaving the courthouse at 9:15 p.m. to return to Ogle's office, which was located in Jefferson City, some 40 miles away in an adjoining county. 757 F.2d at 1201. The majority then correctly identifies the question of first impression we face in this case: Given the provision in Rule 26.2(d) permitting a "recess in the trial for the examination of such statement and for preparation of its use in the trial", was counsel in this case afforded a reasonable opportunity to examine April Ward's prior statements and prepare for her cross-examination? 1986), a court ordered the witnesses to submit to depositions in order to cure the problem. He was a member of Millican Grove Baptist Church where he attended and taught Sunday school for many years. Defendant has not done this and we find no error. MG100 Coach. Arterburn v. State, supra, 391 S.W.2d at 657; State v. Braggs, 604 S.W.2d 883, 886 (Tenn. Crim. See, e.g., Bryant v. State, 539 S.W.2d 816, 819 (Tenn. Crim. 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.
Network Rail Redundancy Pay Calculator,
Japanese Pickled Mustard Eggplant Recipe,
What Is A Thermal Suite On Carnival Cruise,
Articles G
