During *540 cross-examination of April Ward, when defense counsel asked Ward why she had lied to law enforcement officers regarding whom she had told about the crime, a juror whispered loudly, "What's the difference?" 1985). 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. 601 ("Every person of sufficient capacity to understand the obligation of an oath or affirmation is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute.") Read More In the past, Michael has also been known as Michael G Caughron, Michael Gary Caughron, Mike G Caughron, Michael Cauchron and Michael Coughron. Focused on developing the leaders of the future today. Our examination of the record shows at least five occasions when Defendant objected to the State's questioning of Ward as leading. A purse and its contents lay strewn in the hall. Id. In response to the defendant's pretrial "Brady motion" seeking pretrial disclosure of material evidence favorable to the defense the prosecutor failed to provide defense counsel with copies of April Ward's prior inconsistent statements. Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee - CourtListener.com For persons dying between 1940-1997, you can order a copy of the death certificate via Ancestry.com for a fee. 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. App. Gary June Concord, MA Barnes and Noble Education (BNED) VP--Head of Institutional Sales (Oct 2019 - Apr 2021) Florida State University Certificate (2001 - 2002) Media professional, angel investor, coach Gary June Columbus, Ohio Police Officer - Department of Gary June Portsmouth, OH Sales Director Gary & June Thompson Arlington, TX Gary June 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." 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. 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. 1981). The Defendant avers that the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial because of a juror's comments. Gary June - Chief Marketing Officer - Blausen Medical | LinkedIn The Defendant specifically complains of the trial court's interruption of his cross-examination of Christy Jones Scott and of Officer Sam Owenby, both of which interruptions were apparently attempts to keep the examination moving along; and of the court's statements during the cross-examination of Dr. Cleland Blake that what the doctor had told the jury was "just what he's told them" and that questions about why the doctor took fingernail clippings were academic and the answer obvious to anyone who had watched the television show Quincy. App. Almost everything that the jury learned about Ann Jones's death, other than the description of the crime scene given by investigators, came from April's testimony. 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 factual background of the state's case against Gary Caughron is set out in detail in the majority opinion. Likewise, in State v. Williams, 690 S.W.2d 517, 525 (Tenn. 1985), this Court held that "when the reliability of a witness may well *548 be determinative of guilt or innocence, the non-disclosure of evidence affecting his credibility may justify a new trial, regardless of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecutor." In this case the proof vividly shows that this murder involved both torture and depravity of mind. 2d 1103 (1957). See Hale v. State, 198 Tenn. 461, 281 S.W.2d 51, 58 (1955); Mothershed v. State, 578 S.W.2d 96, 99 (Tenn. Crim. United States v. Holmes, 722 F.2d 37, 40 (4th Cir.1983). The trial court did not err in admitting the testimony. Id. United States v. Ingraldi, 793 F.2d 408 (1st Cir.1986). Furthermore, no prejudice has been shown. The court was also requested to have copies of all these files sealed and filed for any appeal. 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. Tennessee had the highest population of Caughron families in 1840. These were objections ordinarily made when and if the potentially objectionable testimony occurred. at 41. His father, whom Pareau described as "overtly psychotic," was an alcoholic and had physically abused his mother until their divorce. App. The Defendant has also failed to show that a different result would have been reached if the continuance had been granted. As April described the scene, the Defendant turned Jones on her stomach and tried unsuccessfully to have sex with her. Then, on June 22, 1988, they took the first of six statements they would obtain from April Ward. One night, two or three weeks before the murder, Ann Jones made the Defendant Caughron, who had been drinking, leave her shop because he was acting in a disorderly manner. When, later that day, the state called April Ward as its fourth witness, Ogle told the trial judge that he had had time to review only one of April's statements and asked that trial be adjourned until the next morning to permit him to examine the rest of her statements before she testified. One time when asked who had killed Ann Jones, Defendant stated, "Whoever done it needs help." 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. 804, Advisory Commission Comments. When she returned to the bedroom, she saw the Defendant striking Jones's back with the pool stick. 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. Gary June Caughron. 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. The court refused and pointed out that the district attorney general was aware of his ethical duties and stated that the court would look at anything the Defendant called to its attention but would not "plow" through all the files and evidence. Sharon currently resides at 966 Pinkney Rd, Kenly, NC. 1986), a court ordered the witnesses to submit to depositions in order to cure the problem. 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. 1982). 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." He also objects to Cruze's testimony that the Defendant "sneaked around" her house for some period of time after the murder. 875 S.W.2d 253 (1994) | Cited 9 times . [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. Facebook gives people the power to. See separate dissenting opinion. See, e.g., Bryant v. State, 539 S.W.2d 816, 819 (Tenn. Crim. 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." During the summer of 1988, Caughron himself gave law enforcement officers various statements. This is not a statutory aggravating circumstance although it is similar to the circumstance in T.C.A. There was a gag tied across her mouth, and strips of the blue terry cloth had been wrapped tightly around her neck. 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. 801(c); State v. Coker, 746 S.W.2d 167, 173 (1987). denied, 439 U.S. 873, 99 S. Ct. 207, 58 L. Ed. Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee - CourtListener.com Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee, 03C01-9707-CC-00301 (Tenn. Crim. Maryanne Garon - Associate Professor - LinkedIn The Defendant taunted the victim, despite her pleading, "Please don't hurt me," and told her she was going to die. Rule 26.2(a) states: "After a witness has testified on direct examination, the trial court, on motion shall order the attorney to produce, for the examination and use of the moving party, any statement of the witness that is in their possession and that relates to the subject matter concerning which the witness has testified." Some of the questions objected to were leading, some were not. Another time he said, "If I'm convicted of what I've done, someone will have to pay." Troy Gene Caughron, age 81 of Pigeon Forge, passed away Saturday, December 20, 2014. 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 defense sought to show that, despite a thorough and meticulous investigation, there was absolutely no evidence connecting Defendant with the crime scene. Under caselaw interpreting this statute, discovery of statements by witnesses other than the defendant was not permitted. 2d 1103 (1957). 1990). 1984). See State v. Jenkins, 733 S.W.2d 528, 532 (Tenn. Crim. He picked her up sometime after midnight. 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. 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." Defense counsel repeatedly asked to approach the bench prior to the testimony of certain State's witnesses to present motions in limine objecting to the admission of matters that might potentially come out during the witnesses' testimony. Several witnesses saw what they described as dried blood on him. 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. In it, she disavowed any knowledge of the details of the murder, but made allegations that implicated Caughron, with whom she was no longer romantically engaged. Testimony about April's emotional reaction to the murder tends to bolster her credibility, as does testimony about her continued contact with the Defendant. The admission of expert testimony is largely in the discretion of the trial judge. 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. lab, who was Defendant's first witness. The woman was bound, beaten and strangled with cloth strips. 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. View the profiles of people named 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. 111-129.) With nothing more to go on than these allegations, the trial court did not err in excluding the statements. D. Paine, Tennessee Law of Evidence, 103.3 (2d 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." 378. Defense counsel did not object to a corrected charge. App. Obituaries in Los Angeles County | Los Angeles Public Library Thus, only a part of a witness' statement may be relevant to the hearing. 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. 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.". United States v. Missler, 414 F.2d 1293, 1303-1304 (4th Cir.1969) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Taylor, 771 S.W.2d at 391. 4 Samuel Frank Downey vs. State of Tennessee (03C01-9801-CR-00027) Hamilton Criminal Douglas Meyer 218154 Joseph M. Tipton Its language was also incorporated into Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26. 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. 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. To ensure against such an interpretation of the opinion in Jencks, the United States Congress enacted 18 U.S.C.A. 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. This request was denied, and April Ward's direct examination followed immediately. Three witnesses testified that the Defendant was in the habit of spray painting his "junker" cars different colors. Hinton, supra, at 780. Although the record does not show the exact time that court resumed following this recess, the hour must have been very close to 5:00 p.m., which was the trial judge's previously announced adjournment time. This is one of the most brutal and sadistic killings this Court has reviewed. Caughron Genealogy | WikiTree FREE Family Tree at 78. See State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 368 (Tenn. 1982), cert. The majority "emphasize[s] that this case does not involve the denial of Rule 26.2 statements." 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. Jun 2022 - Present11 months. 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. In 1840 there were 2 Caughron families living in Tennessee. 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. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the Defendant to object when questions were actually asked. But, the production of Jencks material without adequate time to read and make use of it undoubtedly constitutes the functional equivalent of a denial. But, at least initially, she was not a cooperative witness. In turn, he denied knowing the victim, denied any involvement in her death, and denied his actions the day after the killing. As they went down the hall to Jones's bedroom, April could hear her calling, "Who is it? Moreover, the inconsistent statements of a witness are considered impeachment evidence favorable to a defendant. App. To contact Judy, send them an email at judy.caughron@aol.com T.R.E. Gary Robert Caughron was born on month day 1933, at birth place, Missouri, to Edward Wright Caughron and Alleen Inez Caughron (born Long). No. She testified that the Defendant kicked in the bedroom door, which was locked. Arterburn v. State, supra, 391 S.W.2d at 657; State v. Braggs, 604 S.W.2d 883, 886 (Tenn. Crim. We find no reversible error. Today, for the first time, we address what constitutes a sufficient time to review Rule 26.2 statements. 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. Gary Caughron Profiles | Facebook Unable to complete the sex act with Jones, the Defendant suggested sex with April. Jerry Springer longtime syndicated talk-show host and former Cincinnati mayor died Thursday at his home in the suburbs of Chicago. For example, in Clancy v. United States, 365 U.S. 312, 81 S. Ct. 645, 5 L. Ed. denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103 S. Ct. 770, 74 L. Ed. 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. The second best result is Gary Ray Caughron age 40s in Springfield, MO. at 770). 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. 601, see also T.C.A. Search Local Arrest Records See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S. Ct. 763, 766, 31 L. Ed. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. Its misplacement in Rule 16 caused some confusion. Because there were questions about the juror's objectivity and the Defendant was at "enormous risk," the court removed the juror. denied 429 U.S. 821, 97 S. Ct. 69, 50 L. Ed. On cross-examination, however, she conceded that Caughron was not insane and could conform his conduct to the dictates of the law. While we caution restraint in a trial court's interjections and comments *537 during trial, in the overall context of this case, the trial court's behavior in the cited instances did not so clearly violate the mandate of impartiality as to infringe upon the Defendant's right to a fair trial. 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. What are you doing?" The sentencing phase of the trial was much briefer, primarily because the state presented no further proof and the Defendant called only four witnesses. 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. The trial court wished to proceed, apparently to allow April Ward to finish her testimony that day. Because April Ward was effectively under "house arrest" during the months immediately before trial, this directive cut off any access that defense counsel might have had to this crucial witness during his investigation of the case and preparation for trial. 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. 804(b)(5). 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. The court in the present case, however, was unusually active in directing the form that questioning should take. They were due back in court in Sevierville at 9:00 the next morning. 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. 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. 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. Edward was born on May 13 1911, in Obion County, Tn.. Alleen was born on November 17 1912, in Ridgely, Tn.. ), cert. In United States v. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., 655 F. Supp. 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. I am authorized to say that Chief Justice REID joins in this opinion. [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 physical and psychological demands on an attorney in trial, especially a criminal trial involving a capital offense, are heavy.

Qui Est Le Compagnon De Charlotte D'ornellas, Ebird Arizona Rare Bird Alert, Carmel Police Department, Articles A