The remainder may then be disclosed at trial under the provisions of Rule 26.2(a).". Gary June Caughron vs. State of Tennessee (03C01-9707-CC-00301) Sevier Criminal John K. Byers, Sr.J. (Doc. The fact that the victim was tied and gagged, however, raises a question as to whether she was really unconscious during the subsequent abuse, as does the fact that she reportedly "tightened up" when the Defendant tried to achieve sexual penetration. 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. Subsection (d) states that the court "may recess proceedings in the trial for the examination of such statement and for preparation for its use in the trial." 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. 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. These depictions are certainly not pleasant, but they are not shocking or gruesome. MG100 Coach. 3500, known from the time of its passage in 1957 as the Jencks Act. Some of the questions objected to were leading, some were not. 669 F.2d at 11. The City Council last year officially declared June to be Pride Month in Solvang, and the town, just a few years ago, had a gay mayor. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to examine the State's files. 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. 1985); State v. Hardin, 691 S.W.2d 578, 581 (Tenn. Crim. 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. [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. Gary Caughron Profiles | Facebook 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 trial court laid the blame for this predicament on the defendant's attorney. With nothing more to go on than these allegations, the trial court did not err in excluding the statements. The Defendant insists that certain testimony of April Ward and her mother, Lettie Cruze, concerning statements made by the victim was inadmissible hearsay. The motion is . *542 The trial court held him in contempt. Ogle had been a boyfriend of Teresa Goad, one of the victim's daughters. The two of them left the shops with Yoakum and went to April's mother's house, where the Defendant bathed. 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. 1990). This upset Caughron, who told April Ward that he would like to catch Ann Jones "out one night" and "slice her throat." As one commentator has noted, once a Jencks statement is deemed producible, "the defendant's right to the statement is virtually absolute." Sometime after court adjourned at 7:15 p.m., the district attorney handed defense counsel a package containing the pretrial statements of all prospective witnesses for the state, including April Ward. Join Facebook to connect with Gary Caughron and others you may know. Near the end of the direct examination, during a break in testimony taken to deal with an unrelated question, Ogle noted that it was 4:05 p.m.; he again reminded the trial judge that he had not had an opportunity to read all of April's prior statements; and he said, "I would ask the Court to allow me to start my cross-examination in the morning, because I am not prepared and there's no way in the world I can cross-examine this witness today." denied 429 U.S. 821, 97 S. Ct. 69, 50 L. Ed. Ward was a young and highly emotional witness and at times it was necessary to lead her "to develop" her testimony. Several witnesses saw what they described as dried blood on him. Dr. Blake was a board certified forensic pathologist in practice in that field since 1963. Sharon was born on 09.01.67. This proposed instruction was rejected by the Court in State v. Payne, 791 S.W.2d 10, 21 (Tenn. 1990), and State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 367 (Tenn. 1982), cert. 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. Obituaries - Los Angeles Times App. Caughron, 27, accompanied by 14-year-old April Marie Ward with whom he was romantically involved, entered the home of Ann Robertson Jones and kicked in her bedroom door. Harry Caughron Obituary (2010) - Culpeper, VA - Orange News - Legacy.com The courts already demand much of attorneys appointed to represent indigent defendants, especially those who (like Caughron) face imposition of the ultimate penalty. At his last interview, when confronted with falsehoods in his prior statements, Caughron became upset and walked out of the room. denied, 419 U.S. 864, 95 S. Ct. 119, 42 L. Ed. (Doc. The Defendant, Gary June Caughron, appeals directly to this Court his conviction of first degree premeditated murder and the sentence of death imposed by the jury, and his convictions of first degree burglary, and assault with intent to commit rape. Tippens was unable to come to trial because of a back condition. Michael Gary Caughron, 59 - Port Lavaca, TX - MyLife.com 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. 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. Oklahoma troopers said Henry L. Boren, 80, apparently fell. He argues that Jones was unconscious during most of the acts that occurred that night. Moreover, the cumulative prejudice resulting from the due process violations in this case, in which the defendant has been convicted and sentenced to death, cannot be written off as harmless error. 369 F.2d at 189. [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. The Defendant asserts that Phillips' recantation is a lie, pointing out that no reward was being offered on July 15, 1987. 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. View Gary June Caughron's Criminal Record Alias (es) Canghorn, Gary June 2d 137 (1986); State v. Coker, 746 S.W.2d 167, 171 (Tenn. 1987); State v. McKay, 680 S.W.2d 447, 450, 453-455 (Tenn. 1984). The record shows that juror Jerry McGill was related to State's witness John Brown by marriage. Both this case and Gregory are examples of courts perceiving the obvious hindrance to defense counsel's trial preparation when the state instructs witnesses not to talk. The boot comment was one episode of this behavior. Without any realistic gauge with which to measure the extent of prejudice to the defendant as a result of the due process violations apparent in this record, I conclude that the only appropriate relief is to grant the defendant a new trial, at which the defense will have the benefit of the discovery and disclosure that it should have had prior to and during the first trial. 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." Obviously, whether any one of these provisions has been violated and what action must be taken to correct the error can only be determined on a case-by-case basis, in context both the evidence in the record and the procedure followed at trial. T.R.E. The facts of Holmes bear an almost uncanny resemblance to the facts in this case: The Holmes court held that it was "clear that defendants were not afforded a reasonable opportunity to examine and digest the mass of material furnished them on the Sunday before the Monday trial began." Dr. Pareau felt that Defendant would not be a physical threat to society or other prison inmates. [2] Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 97 S. Ct. 837, 51 L. Ed. This request was denied, and April Ward's direct examination followed immediately. 39-2-203(i)(5) requiring torture or depravity of mind and should define "cruel," "torture" and "depravity." Of course, a witness has the right to refuse to be interviewed. 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. On their way to Ann Jones's house April and the Defendant drank alcohol and took drugs. Hence, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. On the right buttock were "three linear imprints, superficial bruises that fit perfectly with four fingers of a hand." 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." See also Boone v. Paderick, 541 F.2d 447 (4th Cir.1976); United States v. Sutton, 542 F.2d 1239 (4th Cir.1976). [The statements are] not that different [from each other]." 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. 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. 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.
French Border Control Eurotunnel Contact Number,
Shooting In Savannah, Ga Last Night,
Parfums Vintage Clone List,
What Human Rights Were Violated During The Cambodian Genocide,
Articles G