1986), a court ordered the witnesses to submit to depositions in order to cure the problem. 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. 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 . Finally, Defendant complains that the judge told the jury that they did not have to look at Ogle's boot and a full-scale photograph of the footprint on the door when these items were passed as exhibits. The Defendant further complains that the trial court erred in admitting testimony *539 by Lettie Cruze that around the time of the murder, her daughter, April Ward, was having trouble in school and crying a lot. 1973); United States v. Matlock, 491 F.2d 504 (6th Cir. 40-2441, enacted in 1963, permitted pretrial discovery of a confession or statement against interest made by the accused. Leadership role overseeing approximately 40 technicians in a fast paced environment. They used to work at Ruidoso Residential Properties. C. Robert Caughron 21 Aug 1925 Webb City, Jasper, Missouri, United States - 17 Dec 1989 Willis Caughron abt 1815 Kentucky, United States - abt 1861 managed by Larry Shelley last edited 30 May 2021 William Caughron abt 1784 Virginia, United States Gen., Nashville, Al Schmutzer, Jr., Dist. State v. Elliott, 703 S.W.2d 171, 176 (Tenn. Crim. denied, 419 U.S. 864, 95 S. Ct. 119, 42 L. Ed. No abuse of discretion warranting reversal is shown in this case. That testimony is summarized below. The Defendant told Haynes that when he woke up the next morning he had blood all over him and that he did not know whether or not he had killed the victim. The trial court laid the blame for this predicament on the defendant's attorney. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Dr. Blake to give his opinions on what had caused these injuries. 2d 457 (1985) (citing United States v. Higgs, 713 F.2d 39 (3d Cir.1983)), that "no violation occurs as long as Brady material is disclosed to a defendant in time for its effective use at trial." While federal authority is not binding on Tennessee state courts, it is obviously persuasive in resolving disputes such as the one now before us, not only because the drafters of the Tennessee rule opted to follow the federal model so closely, but also because of the thoroughness the federal courts have brought to the analysis of Jencks disputes. 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). App. I conclude, to the contrary, that the combined action of the police, the prosecutors, and the trial judge operated effectively to deprive the defendant of his right to due process.[1]. 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. The evidence was clearly favorable to the defendant as impeachment evidence and also material to the issue of guilt, given the fact that the witness's testimony was the "linchpin of the case." For there can be no dispute, given the facts of this case, that the error committed by the trial court was prejudicial. In early summer 1987, according to April, she and the 27-year-old Defendant met and became romantically involved. Courts will find prejudice, however, when defendant's pre-trial preparation is hampered by the inability of counsel to assess the credibility of witnesses. 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. We therefore affirm the convictions and the sentences. The physical and psychological demands on an attorney in trial, especially a criminal trial involving a capital offense, are heavy. When asked to decide whether suppressed evidence is material, the courts have generally held that "the materiality of the withheld evidence may depend on the closeness of the case." The majority here finds no error in the trial court's ruling. The trial court also has broad discretion in controlling the course and conduct of the trial. It fails to take into account the fact that almost half this period of time, nine hours, was spent in court during the course of the trial. [2] So long as a witness is of sufficient capacity to understand the obligation of an oath or affirmation, and some rule or statute does not provide otherwise, the witness is competent. The record reflects that "it took an experienced attorney twenty-four hours to read through this material once in preparation for this appeal."[5]Id. In any event, the proof shows that in addition to inflicting the head injuries, the Defendant tied Ann Jones to the bed, attempted to rape her (probably anally), beat her with a pool stick, slapped her buttocks so hard that an imprint of his hand was left on her skin, gagged and strangled her, and drank her blood after smearing it on himself and his accomplice, with whom he had sex as the victim lay dying nearby. The court stated: Id. Finally, in United States v. Moceri, 359 F. Supp. scientist Robert E. McFadden to the effect that the record was "full of proof" that the bedroom door had been knocked off its hinges. See separate dissenting opinion. 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." 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. April also said that she had told the Defendant what Jones had done. Over 10 years of leadership and team building that collaborate to save . See also United States v. Peters, 732 F.2d 1004 (1st Cir.1984); United States v. Higgs, 713 F.2d 39, 44 (3d Cir.1983); United States v. Xheka, 704 F.2d 974, 981 (7th Cir.1983); United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321, 1346 (7th Cir. 138.) 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. The actual damage to defendant's trial preparation is incapable of qualitative assessment, but defense counsel's efforts to secure copies of April Ward's statement(s) prior to trial, as well as his repeated requests for time to review the statements provided to him the night before her direct examination, suggest that unlike the efforts of the attorneys in several of the cases discussed above, Caughron's counsel's efforts to defend his client were hampered by the complete lack of access to the state's crucial witness. On cross-examination, however, she conceded that Caughron was not insane and could conform his conduct to the dictates of the law. Allowing the recall of a witness is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will only be disturbed upon a showing of abuse of discretion. George Cleveland Roach. Dr. Blake's testimony was that the head injuries would have rendered her unconscious. Although April's testimony was confused as to exact chronology, it appears that at some point, Jones was gagged to stop her screaming and tied up with the strips of towel and sheer material. Dellinger v. United States, 474 U.S. 1005, 106 S. Ct. 524, 88 L. Ed. Hence, courts have suggested that both the Sixth Amendment's right to compulsory process, Id., and the right to confrontation are implicated in the violation of the procedural guarantees of Rule 26.2. View Gary June Caughron's Criminal Record Alias (es) Canghorn, Gary June In turn, he denied knowing the victim, denied any involvement in her death, and denied his actions the day after the killing. This description matched that of the ring Christy Jones Scott had found in her mother's driveway after the killing. Sharon currently resides at 966 Pinkney Rd, Kenly, NC. Michael Caughron , 59. 1978). Ward was a young and highly emotional witness and at times it was necessary to lead her "to develop" her testimony. 855 S.W.2d 526 (1993) | Cited 4 times. The Defendant avers that the trial court's denial of counsel's request for sufficient time to review the statements under Rule 26.2(d) constitutes reversible error. It in no way minimizes the heinousness of the guilty party's conduct. App. He also contends that this evidence was irrelevant. He told April that he would return that night and that the two would go to the victim's house as planned. Thus, the majority concludes, the prosecution's "advance production satisfied the State's duty under Rule 26.2 and avoided the needless delay of the trial," and the trial court's decision "to proceed, apparently to allow April Ward to finish her testimony that day" was not an abuse of discretion. 73 (D.Colo. We are of the opinion that defense counsel, and his defense team, were given a reasonable opportunity to examine and prepare to use the statements in cross-examining April Ward. 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. No hearsay was involved. April Ward's mother, Lettie Marie Cruze, worked at the Turquoise Jewelry Shop in Settler's Village, a group of shops in Pigeon Forge. The Caughron family name was found in the USA, and Canada between 1840 and 1920. We are of the opinion that this senseless, and brutal killing clearly warrants the imposition of the death penalty. The defendant also took a statement to this effect from Phillips. 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." 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. With a few exceptions, see, e.g., Tenn.R.Evid. See, e.g., United States v. Polisi, 416 F.2d 573 (2d Cir.1969); United States v. Shaffer, 789 F.2d 682, 689 (9th Cir.1986). 2d 1287 (1959). The trial court refused to continue the case because Tippens' testimony would be cumulative in light of the fact that there were several other investigating officers who should have possessed the same knowledge. On the afternoon of Friday, July 10, around 3:00 or 4:00 p.m., the Defendant came by April's house in an older model green and white 442 Oldsmobile Cutlass that he had just purchased. 875 S.W.2d 253 (1994) | Cited 9 times . 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 2d 481 (1985). It did not provide for the production of statements by witnesses under any circumstances. 369 F.2d at 189. 804(b)(5). The hearsay statements sought to be admitted, however, bore none of the "persuasive assurances of trustworthiness" present in Chambers, see 410 U.S. at 302, 93 S. Ct. at 1048-1049 (confession made spontaneously to a close acquaintance soon after murder, corroborating evidence present, statement was self-incriminatory and unquestionably against interest). The Defendant has also failed to show that a different result would have been reached if the continuance had been granted. Menu Log In Sign Up Michael Caughron was born on 09/19/1963 and is 59 years old. See also Tenn. R.Evid. While the Defendant was staying at her house shortly after the murder, Cruze noticed that he had "an odd toothbrush for a man," a pink brush with a little rubber tip. Elizabeth T Caughron, Jack L Caughron, and four other persons are also associated with this address. She said that after the two of them undressed, Caughron rubbed the victim's blood on both their bodies as they engaged in sex on the floor beside the bed where Jones lay. The trial court wished to proceed, apparently to allow April Ward to finish her testimony that day. [2] T.C.A. App. Tippens was unable to come to trial because of a back condition. Grady B Caughron of Johnson City, Washington County, Tennessee was born on December 25, 1919, and died at age 87 years old on May 19, 2007. Gary Caughron works at James M Russ II - Connect Realty, which is a Real Estate company. 5249 HIGHWAY 67 WEST MOUNTAIN CITY, TN 37683. Jones instructed him to stay away. He also asked April to watch Jones as she closed her shop and see where she put her money, and to find out if Jones was married and had a telephone or pets. The admission of expert testimony is largely in the discretion of the trial judge. 801(c); State v. Coker, 746 S.W.2d 167, 173 (1987). 1981). 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 Outside, she said, the Defendant used the knife he had given her to cut the telephone lines to make it appear that whoever had killed Jones had not wanted her to use the telephone. 793 F.2d at 413. Right now Gary is an Owner at Caurhon Gary. He was also denied discovery of her statements prior to trial, and he was forced to conduct cross-examination of the state's crucial witness without the benefit of adequate preparation. The proof shows that while Jones was alive and conscious, see State v. Williams, supra, 690 S.W.2d at 529-530, the Defendant told her that she was going to die as she begged for her life. The court did not abuse its discretion here. 2d 43 (1979). 1973). State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 359 (Tenn. 1982). Caughron said that he stayed at his grandmother's house on the night of the killing and had been riding around with a friend and his wife at the time of the murder. The woman was bound, beaten and strangled with cloth strips. 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. While neither state nor federal trial judges can require advance disclosure of statements, U.S. v. Algie, 667 F.2d 569 (6th Cir.1982) and State v. Taylor, supra, prosecutors *536 should nevertheless avoid needless delay by following the State's example here. The State asserts, correctly under T.R.A.P. At the very least, the majority should offer some guidance on the nature and extent of the trial court's discretion in this area of *550 the law and should set standards for determining when an abuse of that discretion has occurred. Gary Caughronwas born on 03/07/1955 and is 67 years old. It is this latter possibility that should lead this Court to hold that the trial court's denial of counsel's request for a recess or a reasonable time to review the statements under Rule 26.2(d) constitutes reversible error. The reviewing court found an abuse of discretion amounting to a violation of the defendants' rights under the Jencks Act and ordered a new trial. His stepfather, for example, had beaten him and humiliated him for bedwetting. 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." This constitutional violation is made all the more egregious by the fact that the trial court took note that it was imminent, but did nothing to prevent it. His father, whom Pareau described as "overtly psychotic," was an alcoholic and had physically abused his mother until their divorce. After working in a law firm briefly, he became a public defender, then worked as a trial lawyer in California. Apr 2016 - Sep 20182 years 6 months. He also objects to Cruze's testimony that the Defendant "sneaked around" her house for some period of time after the murder. 757 F.2d at 1201. 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 Defendant carried with him the handle of a pool stick, around which he had placed gray duct tape, and pieces of the sheer material that he already had in his car. The record reveals, however, that the court was in the habit of telling the jurors that they did not have to look at potentially distasteful physical evidence, such as the cloth that had bound the victim, when it was passed to them. These factors contribute to what inevitably becomes a subjective assessment of the damage likely to have been done by the state's misconduct. This upset Caughron, who told April Ward that he would like to catch Ann Jones "out one night" and "slice her throat." The first such testimony objected to by Defendant was that of April Ward, to the effect that she was upset with Jones because of a conversation that Jones had had with her mother; that she was mad at Jones because "no one approved of us on the porch"; and that she hurt Jones because she hated her for going to her mother and trying to separate her from the Defendant. Search Local Arrest Records Madison County JACKSON A Jackson man died yesterday morning in a single-vehicle accident in eastern Oklahoma, the Highway Patrol reported. 2d 104 (1972); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 87 L. Ed. 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. He had been drinking but, according to April was "not drunk." Similar beating of a victim was held to support a finding of aggravating circumstance (i)(5) in State v. Barber, 753 S.W.2d 659, 668 (Tenn. 1988); State v. McNish, 727 S.W.2d 490, 494 (Tenn. 1987); and State v. Cone, 665 S.W.2d 87, 94-95 (Tenn. 1984). In 1940, in the year that Shelby Caughron was born, in July, Billboard published its first Music Popularity Chart. Gen. and Reporter, Merrilyn Feirman, Asst. T.R.E. Sharon is sixty years old. But this is not a routine case it is a capital case, one in which the defendant was ultimately sentenced to execution, based entirely on the testimony of 16-year-old April Ward, an accomplice who had given police a total of six contradictory statements, all of which had been systematically withheld from defense counsel despite legitimate efforts, both informal and formal, to obtain them prior to and at the time of trial. The Defendant presented evidence that, based on evidence gathered at the crime scene, none of the tests or analyses performed by forensic scientists from TBI and the FBI had connected him with the killing. 5249 HWY 67W MOUNTAIN CITY, TN 37683. Because she knew that her mother would have disapproved of her relationship with the Defendant if she had known his true age, April had told her mother that the Defendant was 18. 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. 611(c) provides that "[l]eading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as to develop testimony." Taylor, of course, stands for the obvious proposition that on motion, "a[] statement of the witness that relates to the subject matter concerning which the witness has testified" must be "produce[d] for the examination and use of the moving party," but only "[a]fter [that] witness has testified on direct examination." Gary R Caughron 1933 - 1993. Thus, a reviewing court must consider the materiality of the withheld evidence in light of the other evidence presented. [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. Join Facebook to connect with Gary Caughron and others you may know. 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. The court in the present case, however, was unusually active in directing the form that questioning should take. Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196-97. What are you doing?" For the reasons set out above, I dissent from the majority's decision to affirm the defendant's conviction in this case. Here, the statements were given to counsel the night before (7:15 p.m.) and cross-examination began at approximately 5 p.m., the next afternoon just short of twenty-two hours later. App. 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. The witness to be impeached cannot, however, be one whose credibility does not affect defendant's guilt or innocence, a limitation that is clearly met in this case. Defendant's next objection was to the testimony of April's mother that the victim had told her that as a rule she did not get involved in other people's affairs but that she thought "April was a sweet little girl and she didn't trust Gary Caughron." Gammon v. State, 506 S.W.2d 188, 190 (Tenn. Crim. App. Ogle had been a boyfriend of Teresa Goad, one of the victim's daughters. Associate Professor . The Goldberg court cited with approval Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 373, 79 S. Ct. 1231, 3 L. Ed. 2. On their way to Ann Jones's house April and the Defendant drank alcohol and took drugs. 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. Phillips seemed to think that by testifying he would be risking a charge of perjury. 1980); see also State v. Taylor, 669 S.W.2d 694, 698-700 (Tenn. Crim. The court found it "grossly unfair" to permit this kind of prosecutorial misconduct, which had "unfairly hampered the defendants' investigation." [3] While Brady contemplates the suppression of many types of exculpatory evidence, the Supreme Court has specifically held that evidence impeaching a government witness's credibility may be exculpatory within the meaning of Brady. 39-13-206(c)(1)(D) [formerly T.C.A. Atty., Sevierville, for appellee. Select this result to view Gary Richard Caughron's phone number, address, and more. This is one of the most brutal and sadistic killings this Court has reviewed. Gary is currently based in Ruidoso, New Mexico. Read More The crucial evidence Defendant alleged Tippens possessed was his knowledge that there were groceries in the victim's truck when the body was discovered. The gag, bound so tightly that it cut a deep groove into the corners of the victim's mouth, combined with the hemorrhaging in the nasal passages, had caused her to suffocate. The record reflects that the state relied on it in arguing aggravating circumstances during the penalty phase of the proceedings. He was 79. 2d 537 (1969). At the beginning of trial the Defendant asked the court to inspect the files in camera to look for any possible exculpatory evidence. In this case six statements, totaling 64 pages, were given to counsel for overnight study and reflection. Moreover, the inconsistent statements of a witness are considered impeachment evidence favorable to a defendant. "First, as formerly was evident in Rule 16, the Committee deliberately did not incorporate that provision of subdivision (e)(3) of the Jencks Act, which applies to statements of witnesses before a grand jury, and such statements are not meant to be obtainable simply because a grand jury witness testifies for the State. Krilich v. United States, 502 F.2d 680 (7th Cir.1974). Hence, both the due process violation by police in directing April Ward's mother not to let her talk to defense counsel, and the extenuation of that due process violation by the prosecutor in wrongfully withholding Brady material, could have been overcome in this case, had the trial court given defense counsel an adequate opportunity to review that material at an appropriate point during the trial. The court was presented with a young girl who had participated in a brutal, ritualistic-type murder, who repeatedly cried on the witness stand, and who required several recesses in order for her to regain her composure. 1982). 40-2044, enacted in 1968, permitted pretrial discovery of documents, photographs, and tangible objects. She said that he had been in special education classes, where he had done well. In that 13-hour interval, he was called upon to confer with his client, to spend the patter part of two hours driving to and from his out-of-county office, to review the day's events with his co-counsel, to prepare his opening statement for the next morning, and to tend to such personal matters as eating, sleeping, and maintaining personal hygiene. The next day, the trial judge refused to recess trial following April Ward's testimony on direct examination, despite counsel's representation that he had not had adequate time to review her pretrial statements and was unprepared to cross-examine her. Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Knoxville. 1991), the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed a conviction after the district attorney sent letters to prospective witnesses asking them not to discuss the case without a government attorney present. Brooks v. State, 187 Tenn. 67, 213 S.W.2d 7, 10 (1948). He had conducted 2500 forensic investigations. v. Defendant argues that the failure of the trial court to ask April Ward whether she understood the difference between telling the truth and a lie and whether she comprehended the importance of telling the truth rendered the competency evaluation conducted before she testified inadequate. In the majority's judgment, two hours would have been sufficient time to comply with the requirements of Rule 26.2. According to the state's forensic pathologist, Dr. Cleland Blake, Jones had suffered several "blunt traumatic contusions" to her head. The State asserts that the Defendant waived this issue. 1980). April testified that she then hit the victim in the head two times. The Defendant asserts on appeal that the statements should have been admitted because of constitutional considerations and cites Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 35 L. Ed.
Mini Moet Rose Bottles 6 Pack,
United Way Metro Chicago Agency Portal,
Ex Military Vehicles For Sale Northern Ireland,
Tiara Sovran Problems,
Elyon Sea Server Release Date,
Articles G
