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. In the past, Gary has also been known as Gary L Caughorn, Gary L Aughron and Gary L Caughron. First, there is no reasonable basis in fact for the trial court's allegation that defense counsel had not been diligent, either in his representation of his client or in the discharge of his duties as an officer of the court. When April's mother commented that "he looked like some sort of wild woman got a hold of him the night before," he "sniggered" and said, "No, I just got in a fight over a beer in a bar in Newport." 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. The State asserts that this issue should be treated as waived because, as the State correctly points out, the Defendant has failed to cite to the location in the record of the specific questions of which he complains. 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. 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. He was a member of Maples Branch Baptist Church and was retired from the City of Pigeon Forge. The due process implications of government interference with a defendant's right to interview potential witnesses may best be seen as a continuum, at one end of which is the active concealment of key witnesses. 4 Samuel Frank Downey vs. State of Tennessee (03C01-9801-CR-00027) Hamilton Criminal Douglas Meyer 218154 Joseph M. Tipton The federal courts have noted, however, "that in some situations denial of production of a Jencks Act type of statement might be a denial of a Sixth Amendment right." ), cert. We therefore affirm the convictions and the sentences. Tennessee had the highest population of Caughron families in 1840. The trial court responded by pointing out that the defense team, consisting of attorneys Carl Ogle, Jr., Stephen Ward, and an investigator, had "had the statements overnight." 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. The trial judge and a majority of this court apparently expect defense counsel to be able to prepare cross-examination from notes taken by an investigator (notes which the lawyer and the investigator may not have had a chance to discuss) while trial is actually in progress. After drinking the blood, April said, she went to the bathroom to throw up, but did not. 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. 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. Troy Gene Caughron (1933-2014) - Find a Grave Memorial He had been drinking but, according to April was "not drunk." The record in this case indicates that despite the defendant's timely motion for disclosure, the prosecutor did not produce the inconsistent statements of April Ward, *549 the key witness for the state, until the night before she testified at trial. App. STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, 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. "Second, Rule 26.2(f) now makes it clear that this rule applies not only to trial situations, but also to pretrial testimony such as might be given at a suppression hearing. This testimony, according to Defendant, would tend to show that the victim never had a chance to bring in her groceries before she died and thus was first attacked outside the house. Had April Ward been the State's first witness the morning of trial and had the State produced her statements after her direct examination, we are of the opinion that a two hour recess would have been adequate for counsel to properly prepare for cross-examination. denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103 S. Ct. 770, 74 L. Ed. The Defendant avers that the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial because of a juror's comments. 611(c) provides that "[l]eading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as to develop testimony." 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. The door had been made available to the defense attorney for examination on January 26, three days before his motion. 16(a)(1)(A). Further, the Federal rule treats law enforcement officials as witnesses called by the state, but the commission elected not to adopt this provision. Id. A due process violation requires more than the suppression of significant exculpatory evidence, however. Finally, it must be emphasized that the majority's calculation that defense counsel had 22 hours in which to "study and reflect on the pretrial statements of April Ward" (and some 20 other witnesses) is purely illusory. Create, edit, and maintain all scheduling . The best result we found for your search is Gary Richard Caughron age 60s in Granite City, IL. 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. Later that day, Caughron spray-painted his car silver, as he told April, to prevent anyone who might have seen it the night before from identifying it. 40-2441, enacted in 1963, permitted pretrial discovery of a confession or statement against interest made by the accused. The Defendant has also failed to show that a different result would have been reached if the continuance had been granted. During the course of their investigation, the police directed April Ward's mother, Lettie Cruze, not to permit April to talk with defense counsel. The State asserts that it did. Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee - CourtListener.com 73 (D.Colo. 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. Defendant challenges the admissibility of Huskey's testimony that in 1986 the Defendant listened to hard rock music, drew sketches of "demons and stuff" like that on record album covers, had a pool stick that broke down into three pieces, had a light-colored tablecloth or curtain material in the back of his car, talked about tying up women during sex and told Huskey that slapping women "on the butt really turned him on." Dr. Blake's testimony was that the head injuries would have rendered her unconscious. In State v. Groseclose, 615 S.W.2d 142 (Tenn. 1981), and State v. Strouth, 620 S.W.2d 467 (Tenn. 1981), in which the victims were unconscious for part of the time, death penalties rendered under this aggravating circumstance were upheld. 793 F.2d at 413. See State v. Jenkins, 733 S.W.2d 528, 532 (Tenn. Crim. In that case the Court held that defense counsel has a right to inspect prior statements or reports by a government witness, following *535 direct examination of the witness, to the extent that those reports or statements are related to the witness's testimony on direct examination, for the purpose of using them to prepare or conduct cross-examination. 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. 669 F.2d at 11. denied, 439 U.S. 873, 99 S. Ct. 207, 58 L. Ed. April also said that she had told the Defendant what Jones had done. This advance production satisfied the State's duty under Rule 26.2 and avoided the needless delay of the trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to examine the State's files. 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 They used to work at Ruidoso Residential Properties. It should be noted, however, that perhaps the most ghoulish aspect of April Ward's testimony, to the effect that she and Caughron drank the victim's blood out of shot-glasses as she lay dying nearby, nowhere appears in any of Ward's prior statements,[8] a fact of which counsel may have been totally unaware,[9] since he had not had an adequate opportunity to read and compare all the statements. [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. When Robert Yoakum, Cruze's boyfriend, teased the Defendant about the blood, Caughron told him that "a bitch had hit him in the head with a beer bottle." 2d 215 (1963), governing the right to pretrial discovery of exculpatory evidence material to the issue of the defendant's guilt, discussed further in Section II, infra. He reminded the trial judge that he had not received the package of statements until after court adjourned the previous night. See State v. Henley, 774 S.W.2d 908, 913 (Tenn. 1989); State v. Sparks, 727 S.W.2d 480, 483 (Tenn. 1987); State v. Carter, 714 S.W.2d 241, 244-245 (Tenn. 1986). To ensure against such an interpretation of the opinion in Jencks, the United States Congress enacted 18 U.S.C.A. The family will celebrate Mr. Caughron's life 11:30 a.m. Wednesday, June 2, 2010, at Woodberry Forest School's Johnson Stadium with Joe Coleman officiating. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d at 391. 2. At the beginning of trial the Defendant asked the court to inspect the files in camera to look for any possible exculpatory evidence. 2d 104 (1972); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 87 L. Ed. These injuries were consistent with those caused by a blunt or rounded object and would have rendered Jones unconscious at some point. denied, 396 U.S. 865, 90 S. Ct. 143, 24 L. Ed. It should be emphasized that this case does not involve the denial of Rule 26.2 statements. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion by completing April Ward's testimony that afternoon. 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. 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. Today, for the first time, we address what constitutes a sufficient time to review Rule 26.2 statements. Noting that the statements were admitted falsehoods, the trial court refused to allow their introduction. 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." Answering this inquiry in the affirmative, the majority postulates that because the defense "team" was given a copy of April's six statements "for overnight study and reflection," defense counsel had 22 hours in which to "study and reflect" on those 64 pages. According to April, the Defendant dumped out the contents of Jones's purse as they left and took what appeared to be a large amount of money. Some of the questions objected to were leading, some were not. He argues that Jones was unconscious during most of the acts that occurred that night. In 1940, in the year that Shelby Caughron was born, in July, Billboard published its first Music Popularity Chart. Public records show that the phone number (478) 923-6928 is linked to Gary S Caughron, Jennae M Drane. Then, on June 22, 1988, they took the first of six statements they would obtain from April Ward. 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. The phone lines to the house had been cut. [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. Get free summaries of new Tennessee Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! 1985). However, the Tennessee rule applies to all pretrial motions under Rule 12(b). Mary Ann Caughron (1939-2016) - Find a Grave Memorial Gary Caughron, 67 - Capitan | Free Public Reputation Profile - MyLife.com Had the attorney done voluntarily what he was forced to do by the trial court in this case, there can be little doubt that he would be subject to a charge of incompetency and found to have rendered ineffective assistance of counsel much like the attorney in United States v. Hinton, supra, who opted to review a witness's statement while direct examination of that witness was being conducted. It in no way minimizes the heinousness of the guilty party's conduct. 373 U.S. at 84, 83 S. Ct. at 1195. The trial court felt that the Defendant had failed to exercise due diligence in examining the door. Defense counsel then requested that the court also tell the jury that it had not changed the instruction simply to draw attention to that factor. 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.

Enterococcus Faecalis Nitrate Reduction Test Results, Glendale, Az Police Crime Map, The Legend Of Neverland Redeem Code List, Stettin Elementary School Staff, American Press Obituaries Lake Charles, La, Articles G