For example, in Kines v. Butterworth, 669 F.2d 6 (1st Cir.1981), cert. What are you doing?" specializing in shoe track analysis. See State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 368 (Tenn. 1982), cert. 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." Although, as previously noted, there have been few Tennessee cases interpreting Rule 26.2, there is a rich mine of federal case law involving the production of what is now universally referred to as "Jencks material." This last statement was incorrect; but the proof elsewhere, including the photographs and McFadden's subsequent testimony as well as the court's own comments, made the mistake patent to the jury so that the Defendant could not have been prejudiced by the misstatement. Sharon currently resides at 966 Pinkney Rd, Kenly, NC. The burden they assume is difficult, and when acting in good faith, they should be accommodated by the courts in their efforts to discharge their professional obligation to their clients. He called the victim a "bitch." Christy Jones Scott testified that her mother's toothbrush, a pink Oral-B brush, was missing after the killing. 1990). Id. 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." We find no reversible error. App. They were due back in court in Sevierville at 9:00 the next morning. The verdict and judgment are supported by material evidence, and the sentence of death is in no way arbitrary or disproportionate. [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. And when, finally, the prosecutor turned over copies of witness statements to the defendant's *545 attorneys on the first night of trial, counsel was faced with the prospect of digesting over 100 pages, constituting the statements of 20 potential state witnesses, in the few hours before trial resumed the next morning. 1972). 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. When it became apparent that Dedrick would not be at trial, defense counsel expressly stated he did not want a continuance because of the stipulation. The court in the present case, however, was unusually active in directing the form that questioning should take. 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. Gary Robert Caughron was born on month day 1933, at birth place, Missouri, to Edward Wright Caughron and Alleen Inez Caughron (born Long). 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. The police made little progress in the investigation of the Jones homicide during the year after the homicide. He had been drinking but, according to April was "not drunk." 801(c); State v. Coker, 746 S.W.2d 167, 173 (1987). App. 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. 669 F.2d at 11. 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. State v. Elliott, 703 S.W.2d 171, 176 (Tenn. Crim. The evidence fully supports the *544 jury's finding of the aggravating circumstance in 39-2-203(i)(5) (1982). We are of the opinion that this senseless, and brutal killing clearly warrants the imposition of the death penalty. There was, in short, no violation of Rule 26.2 and thus no error, in the majority's view. 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 A further complaint involves a bench conference at which the court urged the Defendant to get to the point before he exhausted the patience of the court and jury. No hearsay was involved. One time when asked who had killed Ann Jones, Defendant stated, "Whoever done it needs help." 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. He was preceded in death by his parents Harmon and Alma Caughron, sisters Pauline,. During the summer of 1988, Caughron himself gave law enforcement officers various statements. Boulder, CO. Jeff Conte. 2d 43 (1979). The court denied counsel's request for another night in which to review the statements. The lawyer was due back in court at 9:00 a.m. the next morning, approximately 13 hours later, ready for trial. 1985); State v. Hardin, 691 S.W.2d 578, 581 (Tenn. Crim. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Although the trial court told defense counsel that he could explore this situation "later at a proper time," counsel never did so. 2d 1103 (1957). 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. The Defendant has also failed to show that a different result would have been reached if the continuance had been granted. 804, Advisory Commission Comments. 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 He was an avid hunter and enjoyed making walking sticks. In turn, he denied knowing the victim, denied any involvement in her death, and denied his actions the day after the killing. Accord, United States v. Winner, 666 F.2d 447, 448-449 (10th Cir.1981); United States v. Knowles, 594 F.2d 753, 755 (9th Cir.1979); United States v. Aaron, 457 F.2d 865, 869 (2nd Cir.1972). Crime Laboratory personnel. The court found it "grossly unfair" to permit this kind of prosecutorial misconduct, which had "unfairly hampered the defendants' investigation." I am authorized to say that Chief Justice REID joins in this opinion. The door had been made available to the defense attorney for examination on January 26, three days before his motion. She described her nephew as "slow" and said that he had a good attitude since he had been in jail. Id. 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. 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. Public records show that the phone number (478) 923-6928 is linked to Gary S Caughron, Jennae M Drane. 2255"). The Defendant specifically cites to interruptions by the court occurring during defense counsel's direct examination of Robert McFadden, a fingerprint expert from the T.B.I. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S. Ct. 763, 766, 31 L. Ed. The Defendant also challenges comments by the court during the direct examination of T.B.I. Bowman v. State, 598 S.W.2d 809, 812 (Tenn. Crim. Byrnes v. United States, 327 F.2d 825, 832 (9th Cir.1964). 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. Records show that Sharon has one phone number, (919) 242-4415 (Carolina Tel and Tel Co , LLC) The court quoted Gregory at length, as well as Gallman v. State, 29 Ala.App. 793 F.2d at 413. 3500, known from the time of its passage in 1957 as the Jencks Act. Phillips seemed to think that by testifying he would be risking a charge of perjury. The key witness in this case was April Marie Ward, who was 14 years old at the time of the killing. The government showed him all statements except the one in which the companion admitted the actual killing. denied 429 U.S. 821, 97 S. Ct. 69, 50 L. Ed. Federal case analysis on this point is compelling. Only if the suppression prevents material exculpatory evidence from effectively being used at trial is there a due process violation. 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 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. The court did not abuse its discretion here. To ensure against such an interpretation of the opinion in Jencks, the United States Congress enacted 18 U.S.C.A. To condone the trial court's action in the name of avoiding delay in the trial, or from some misplaced sympathy for the accomplice, is to make a mockery of the procedural guarantees expressed in our modern rules of procedure and in case law interpreting the reach of due process in criminal trials. 134), followed by Petitioner's surreply on August 15, 2017. 24-1-101 was repealed in 1991 (Caughron was tried in 1990). The boot print on the victim's bedroom door established that someone other than the defendant had kicked in the door. 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. He also objects to Cruze's testimony that the Defendant "sneaked around" her house for some period of time after the murder. 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. These statements certainly would not support a murder conviction in the absence of April Ward's testimony. See also Boone v. Paderick, 541 F.2d 447 (4th Cir.1976); United States v. Sutton, 542 F.2d 1239 (4th Cir.1976). 373 U.S. at 84, 83 S. Ct. at 1195. April 29Los Angeles, CALong Story Short: Willie Nelson 90 at the Hollywood Bowl (SOLD OUT) April 30Los Angeles, CALong Story Short: Willie Nelson 90 at . Elizabeth T Caughron, Jack L Caughron, and four other persons are also associated with this address. 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. Obviously, the error in this case could not be considered harmless under any of the foregoing formulations. 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 two of them left the shops with Yoakum and went to April's mother's house, where the Defendant bathed. You're all set! Put simply, the price of saving less than a half-hour of trial time turned out to be "penny wise but pound foolish.". Her skull had been fractured and the cartilage in her nose displaced by the beating. United States v. Hinton, 631 F.2d 769, 771, 778-780 (D.C. Cir.1980). The FBI developed no forensic evidence implicating Caughron, despite extensive testing on fingerprints, shoeprints, blood and other fluids, and fibers. 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. Carl R. Ogle, Jr., Jefferson City, for appellant. Of course, no post-hoc pronouncement of competency by the trial court can make up for the fact that counsel was hobbled in his representation of Caughron by the denial of his motion for a Rule 26.2(d) recess. The physical and psychological demands on an attorney in trial, especially a criminal trial involving a capital offense, are heavy. 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, in the summer of 1988, Tim McGaha had asked the Defendant if he had committed the murder, Caughron "just smiled." Nos. It is clear from the record that the trial court's decision to deny a recess was not due to any misunderstanding on his part about the crucial nature of April Ward's testimony. Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 26.2(a) (emphasis added). 40-2044, enacted in 1968, permitted pretrial discovery of documents, photographs, and tangible objects. But in February, the City Council rejected the Cavallis . I believe that this case should be remanded for a new trial because of unwarranted interference with the defendant's right to due process by the police, by the prosecution, and by the trial court. Finally, although the trial court denied the motion for continuance on the mistaken belief that FBI Agent Doug Dedrick would testify, Agent Dedrick's testimony was presented to the jury through stipulation. 1980); State v. Nelson, 603 S.W.2d 158, 168 (Tenn. Crim. 1978). [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. He was a member of Millican Grove Baptist Church where he attended and taught Sunday school for many years. 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. 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. We do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant Defendant's motion for a continuance. lab, who was Defendant's first witness. The United States Supreme Court held early on that a Jencks violation could be considered harmless error. The court next defined "cruel," "torture" and "depravity" in accord with State v. Williams, 690 S.W.2d 517, 529-530 (Tenn. 1985). 1985). 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. ." 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 court urged the defense counsel to move along by directing the examination to the evidence that was material and important for the jury to consider. [9] There is no way to know to what extent this aspect of April's testimony may have affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty. Thinkers 50. 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. The Defendant next argues that Dr. Blake was not qualified to characterize the injuries on the victim's back as "whipping marks" and those on her buttock as a slap injury. Further, our comparative proportionality review convinces us that the sentence of death is neither excessive nor disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the nature of the crime and the Defendant. In lieu of flowers, the family is . 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. Citing State v. Pritchett, 621 S.W.2d 127, 139 (Tenn. 1981), in which the victim died instantaneously from the first gunshot fired, the Defendant argues that the record does not support a finding that the Defendant tortured the victim before her death. Dr. Madeline Pareau, a clinical psychologist, testified that Defendant's full IQ was 78, "just a little above mentally retarded classification." 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. This provision is similar to language found in Rule 12(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure but the Tennessee Rules Commission elected to treat all witness statements in one rule. 1981). April testified that Caughron entered the house by himself and then summoned her inside. In this case, the trial judge's misguided decision not to adjourn court before 5:00 p.m., regardless of the circumstances, amounts to an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion, resulting in the necessity of retrial. 1986), a court ordered the witnesses to submit to depositions in order to cure the problem. The court was also requested to have copies of all these files sealed and filed for any appeal. The proof is ambiguous as to whether the State gave Defendant this statement under Rule 16. But in the wake of this initial ruling, the Court has set the threshold for determining harmlessness at a very high level. After allowing the Defendant to approach the bench prior to the testimony of Dr. Cleland Blake, April Ward, Jimmy Lynn Huskey, and Lettie Marie Cruze, when the State called witness Robert Yoakum, and defense counsel again approached the bench, the trial court refused to continue to "pre-review" the testimony, told defense counsel to object to questions as they were asked, and promised that it would then rule on the objections.