Dana Lynne Meese, Newbridge Securities Corporation Complaints, Opi Let's Be Friends Vs Funny Bunny, Debbie Glatzel Johnson Obituary, Draftkings Results Database, Articles G

According to April, Jones cried and pleaded with them not to hurt her, but the two told her she was going to die. Byrnes v. United States, 327 F.2d 825, 832 (9th Cir.1964). 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. We find no error, although the relevance of this evidence is marginal. The purpose of Rule 26.2 is to enable counsel to examine a witness's statements in order to test the credibility of that witness at trial. 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 evidence fully supports the *544 jury's finding of the aggravating circumstance in 39-2-203(i)(5) (1982). App. There would be little logic in requiring statement production only at trial, and not at pretrial hearings where testimony as to the facts of the case is being given under oath. What are you doing?" 1980); State v. Nelson, 603 S.W.2d 158, 168 (Tenn. Crim. The Defendant asserts that Phillips' recantation is a lie, pointing out that no reward was being offered on July 15, 1987. 2d 215 (1963), or Rule 16, T.R.Cr.P. After working in a law firm briefly, he became a public defender, then worked as a trial lawyer in California. App. The Defendant suggested that April accompany Jones to her house after *531 work and give him directions on how to get there. Bentley testified that the rags matched the towelling that he was shown at trial, which had been tied around the victim's body. ), cert. Top recordings of the year were Tommy Dorsey's "I'll Never Smile Again" (vocal Frank Sinatra) - 12 weeks at the top, Bing Crosby's "Only Forever" - 9 weeks at the top, and Artie Shaw's "Frenesi" - 12 weeks at the top. We find no reversible error. In 1840 there were 2 Caughron families living in Tennessee. 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." Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Knoxville. Owner: caughron gary & sharon Tax Year: 2016 Tax Amount: $82.32 Total Market Value: $8,400 Sale Price: $55,000 +Edit Past Address 505 Orchard Rd, Hector, AR 72843 View Address +Edit Past Address 7346 Sr 105 N, Russellville, AR 72802 View Address +Edit Past Address Hc 33 Box 17, Tilly, AR 72679 View Address +Edit Personal Details View All The Gregory court, therefore, found that the state had prejudiced the defendant's pre-trial preparation and thereby deprived him of a fair trial. Obituaries in Los Angeles County | Los Angeles Public Library Gary Robert Caughron was born on month day 1933, at birth place, Missouri, to Edward Wright Caughron and Alleen Inez Caughron (born Long). Id. 431, 438 (N.D.Ohio 1973), the court reviewed an order requiring the government to show cause why it should not make a witness's prior statements available to the defense before trial. The trial of this case lasted four days. Given the centrality of April Ward's testimony, the inherent unreliability which attaches to that testimony by virtue of the half-dozen contradictory statements she made over a five-month period prior to trial, and the trial court's failure to grant counsel a reasonable period of time in which to capitalize upon those various pretrial statements, it appears that the Rule 26.2(d) error in this case was prejudicial. 2d 641 (1980); Lockett v. Blackburn, 571 F.2d 309, 313 (5th Cir. [1] T.C.A. According to the history given by the Defendant, his mother had started acting "quite wild" after the divorce, drinking and dating. For there can be no dispute, given the facts of this case, that the error committed by the trial court was prejudicial. It is true that defense counsel engaged in a vigorous cross-examination of April Ward, confronting her repeatedly with the fact that she had made contradictory statements to police. App. No. In accordance with the mandate of T.C.A. 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. The court quoted Gregory at length, as well as Gallman v. State, 29 Ala.App. See generally United States v. Starusko, 729 F.2d 256 (3d Cir.1984). 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. 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. Judy Caughron OfficialUSA.com Records App. 793 F.2d at 413. 1975). 611(c) provides that "[l]eading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as to develop testimony." In my judgment, the violation of subsection (d) in this case is so clear that the only remaining question concerns the relief that should be granted in light of this error. The motion is . 264, 195 So. 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. Nos. 39-2-205(c)(4)], we find that the sentence of death was not imposed in an arbitrary fashion, that the evidence supports the jury's finding of the statutory aggravating circumstance, and that the evidence supports the jury's finding of the absence of any mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to outweigh the aggravating circumstance so found. She said that the Defendant instructed her to bring a towel and a knife "to gut" Ann Jones. ." We are in agreement with the conclusion of the trial judge that Ward's testimony, as it related to the victim's statements, was not hearsay inasmuch as it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. See also Boone v. Paderick, 541 F.2d 447 (4th Cir.1976); United States v. Sutton, 542 F.2d 1239 (4th Cir.1976). 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. Dr. Blake was a board certified forensic pathologist in practice in that field since 1963. 5249 HIGHWAY 67 WEST MOUNTAIN CITY, TN 37683. 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. He picked her up sometime after midnight. 1972). The trial court did not err in admitting the testimony. 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." 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." Bowman v. State, 598 S.W.2d 809, 812 (Tenn. Crim. When asked why he had tried to kill himself after one of the interrogation sessions with police, he said that "he was depressed and had a lot on his mind." He had been drinking but, according to April was "not drunk." 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. Focused on developing the leaders of the future today. Finally, April testified, Caughron insisted that they drink some of the victim's blood from shot glasses that he produced for the occasion. 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. See State v. West, 767 S.W.2d 387 (Tenn. 1989); State v. O'Guinn, 709 S.W.2d 561 (Tenn. 1986); State v. Alley, 776 S.W.2d 506 (Tenn. 1989). Gary June CAUGHRON, Appellant. Search Local Arrest Records The woman was bound, beaten and strangled with cloth strips. The Defendant complains that the court should not have allowed TBI Agent David Davenport and Detective Kenny Bean to testify about Defendant's attempted suicide because information about the attempt was part of a statement made by the Defendant but not supplied to the defense as required by T.R.Cr.P. The verdict and judgment are supported by material evidence, and the sentence of death is in no way arbitrary or disproportionate. As April described the scene, the Defendant turned Jones on her stomach and tried unsuccessfully to have sex with her. 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. He also objects to Cruze's testimony that the Defendant "sneaked around" her house for some period of time after the murder. 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. 2d 398 (1980). Rogers v. Carpenter | M.D. Tennessee | 03-25-2019 | www.anylaw.com 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. T.R.E. During the summer of 1988, Caughron himself gave law enforcement officers various statements. See also United States v. McCrary, 699 F.2d 1308 (11th Cir.1983). Statements that Caughron made to friends and associates were incriminating to some extent, but for the most part were brief and ambiguous. 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. 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." You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 2d 1103 (1957). Such a deprivation violates the right-to-counsel provision found in Article I, Section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution, as well as the Sixth Amendment of the federal constitution. Gary June Caughron. PDF Supreme Court of Tennessee State List for Permission to Appeal Style Furthermore, there was no reversible error, if any, in failing to sustain the Defendant's objections since prejudice is not clearly shown. 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. To ensure against such an interpretation of the opinion in Jencks, the United States Congress enacted 18 U.S.C.A. Read More The Defendant taunted the victim, despite her pleading, "Please don't hurt me," and told her she was going to die. For example, in Kines v. Butterworth, 669 F.2d 6 (1st Cir.1981), cert. The trial court rejected the Defendant's hearsay objections on the grounds that any statements of the victim described by Ward were not offered for their truth but to show Ward's state of mind and what provoked her to harm the victim. 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. [Emphasis added.] Facebook gives people the power to. In this case the proof vividly shows that this murder involved both torture and depravity of mind. But, at least initially, she was not a cooperative witness. That testimony is summarized below. A third inmate, Bobby Floyd, testified that Defendant told him that the victim was a "bitch," who had threatened to "tell some girl's mother how old he was;" that the only evidence police had against him was an article of clothing with blood on it; and that "the only mistake he [had] made was involving April.". 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. The court was also requested to have copies of all these files sealed and filed for any appeal. At 4:05 p.m. the next day, shortly before the conclusion of the direct examination of April Ward, counsel for Defendant asked the court to allow him to start his cross-examination the next morning. Where a juror is not legally disqualified or there is no inherent prejudice, the burden is on the Defendant to show that a juror is in some way biased or prejudiced. The government showed him all statements except the one in which the companion admitted the actual killing. Based on this authority, "the serious nature of [the] case," and the witness's testimony that the prosecutor's letter influenced his decision not to talk to defense counsel, the court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. 24-1-101 was repealed in 1991 (Caughron was tried in 1990). Gary Allen Caughron Obituary (1963 - 2015) Poteau Daily News Her skull had been fractured and the cartilage in her nose displaced by the beating. (Doc. State v. Caughron :: 1993 :: Tennessee Supreme Court - Justia Law 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." To obtain an actual death certificate (and not just the index) for persons dying in Los Angeles County after July 1, 1905, contact the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, 12400 E. Imperial Hwy, Norwalk, CA 90650. Michael Caughron was born on 09/19/1963 and is 59 years old. NECX PO 5000 MOUNTAIN CITY, TN 37683. 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. Sharon is sixty years old. Atty., Sevierville, for appellee. Berating defense counsel for his repeated efforts to secure a recess, the trial judge said: Following the brief recess, the trial judge added: Before beginning an analysis of the legal principles applicable to these facts, two observations seem pertinent, both based on a careful reading of the transcript in this case. It was only the first in a series of efforts to thwart defense access to information about the case. Costs are adjudged against the Defendant. On their way to Ann Jones's house April and the Defendant drank alcohol and took drugs. 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. Public records show that the phone number (478) 923-6928 is linked to Gary S Caughron, Jennae M Drane. Unlike the government officials in Freeman and Lockett, the state prosecutor here did not physically conceal April Ward. [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. Federal case analysis on this point is compelling. The due process violation in this case began with a police directive to April Ward's mother, Lettie Marie Cruze, not to let April talk to the defendant's counsel during the investigatory stage of this case. App. Get free summaries of new Tennessee Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! As they went down the hall to Jones's bedroom, April could hear her calling, "Who is it? Prior to trial, the court granted the Defendant's request for a competency hearing as to Ward, then seventeen, because she was a juvenile. 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.") View Gary June Caughron's Criminal Record Alias (es) Canghorn, Gary June Gina Caughron in TN - Address & Phone Number | Whitepages App. 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. John Wesley Caughron (deceased) - Genealogy has since been changed to "Every person is presumed competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute.". Gary June's Instagram, Twitter & Facebook on IDCrawl 1985). In turn, he denied knowing the victim, denied any involvement in her death, and denied his actions the day after the killing. 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. Respondent filed a reply in support of his motion on June 27, 2017 (Doc. He was. Sharon Caughron OfficialUSA.com Records See, e.g., State v. Robinson, 618 S.W.2d 754 (Tenn. Crim. In the majority's judgment, two hours would have been sufficient time to comply with the requirements of Rule 26.2. The majority notes that the provisions of Rule 26.2 can be traced directly to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2, which in turn was based on the federal "Jencks Act," 18 U.S.C. The cause may be different, but the result is the same. 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 View Gina Caughron's record in Walland, TN including current phone number, address, relatives, background check report, and property record with Whitepages. Krilich v. United States, 502 F.2d 680 (7th Cir.1974). The Defendant next avers that the trial court erred in unduly restricting his direct examination of T.B.I. Gary June Caughron Registration Details Last Known Address: NECX PO 5000, MOUNTAIN CITY, TN 37683 Gary June Caughron - Registered Sex Offender Criminal Record of Gary June Caughron DOB: 1961-07-28 Race: White Sex: Male Eyes: Hazel Height: 5 ft 4 in Hair: Black Weight: 180 lbs. That court found that "only in the context of either a complete deprivation of discovery or resulting prejudice" does a due process violation occur. When the trial judge responded *552 that he was "powerless to require the Attorney General to do something the rules and the law do not require," that is, to order early production of the statements, Ogle made the following, thoroughly reasonable response: The trial judge denied defense counsel's request for a recess on the ground that the "material is not that complex. 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. Gary Caughron - Cloud Platform Administrator - SAS | LinkedIn The majority "emphasize[s] that this case does not involve the denial of Rule 26.2 statements." Thinkers 50. Defendant was not precluded from developing his theory, although it was not done in the detailed, point by point manner his counsel preferred; and the court did not prohibit any testimony that was shown to be relevant. See Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 106 S. Ct. 1758, 90 L. Ed. denied, 444 U.S. 833, 100 S. Ct. 65, 62 L. Ed. Courts will find prejudice, however, when defendant's pre-trial preparation is hampered by the inability of counsel to assess the credibility of witnesses. DAUGHTREY, J., and REID, C.J., dissent. In order to clarify the purpose and timing of the production of witness statements at trial, the provisions formerly contained in Rule 16(a)(1)(E) and (F) were recast as Rule 26.2 in 1984. The defendant must show that the state withheld favorable, material evidence and that its suppression was prejudicial to the defendant's case. 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. It is well-settled that the propriety, scope, manner and control of the examination of witnesses is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge, subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion. Building on its ruling in Clancy, the United States Supreme Court noted in Goldberg v. United States: 425 U.S. 94, 111, note 21, 96 S. Ct. 1338, 1348, note 21, 47 L. Ed. 1990), the writers suggest that leading questions may be used to shorten the time needed for a witness to testify or to facilitate the direct examination of a young or otherwise impaired witness. The Defendant next asserts that the trial court prejudiced Defendant's case by indicating to the jury throughout the trial that the court believed that the Defendant was guilty. The FBI developed no forensic evidence implicating Caughron, despite extensive testing on fingerprints, shoeprints, blood and other fluids, and fibers. This description matched that of the ring Christy Jones Scott had found in her mother's driveway after the killing. 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. Over the course of these interviews, the Defendant became more and more nervous. Defendant filed a pretrial motion for the court to conduct an in camera inspection of *541 the State's entire files, as well as the files of any agencies or individuals that had investigated the case for the State, and to determine if the State had failed to hand over anything that might be vital to the preparation of the defense. 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. 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. 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. According to Green, the Defendant's childhood had been very unsettled.