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. Records show that Sharon has one phone number, (919) 242-4415 (Carolina Tel and Tel Co , LLC) 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. A purse and its contents lay strewn in the hall. 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. 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. The Defendant argues that questioning jurors about their beliefs on the death penalty biases the jury toward a finding of guilt and acceptance of the death penalty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, 8 and 9, of the Tennessee Constitution. 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. 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. A due process violation requires more than the suppression of significant exculpatory evidence, however. 855 S.W.2d 526 (1993) | Cited 4 times. 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 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. The Defendant avers that the trial court erred in not permitting him to make the final closing argument at sentencing. 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. As April described the scene, the Defendant turned Jones on her stomach and tried unsuccessfully to have sex with her. 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 At trial the Defendant elicited from Christy Jones Scott the testimony that she had unloaded two or three bags of laundry detergent from her mother's truck after she had found her mother. When, in the summer of 1988, Tim McGaha had asked the Defendant if he had committed the murder, Caughron "just smiled." Defense counsel then argued that he should be allowed to read Phillips' previous statements into evidence because Phillips was "unavailable" under T.R.E. This is one of the most brutal and sadistic killings this Court has reviewed. The Defendant has also failed to show that a different result would have been reached if the continuance had been granted. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to examine the State's files. The State asserts, correctly under T.R.A.P. Gen. and Reporter, Merrilyn Feirman, Asst. 5249 HIGHWAY 67 WEST MOUNTAIN CITY, TN 37683. 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. "First, as formerly was evident in Rule 16, the Committee deliberately did not incorporate that provision of subdivision (e)(3) of the Jencks Act, which applies to statements of witnesses before a grand jury, and such statements are not meant to be obtainable simply because a grand jury witness testifies for the State. Defense counsel did not object to a corrected charge. Here, as in Hinton, counsel's conduct was not "the product of deliberate and informed decision" but is marked by "inadequate preparation," resulting in the deprivation of the defendant's right to the effective assistance of counsel. 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. The statute, T.C.A. at 770). Caughron cleaned himself in the store's restroom. 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. App. 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." The phone numbers associated with Judy: (478) 923-6928 (Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC), (478) 284-7727 (Sprint Spectrum LPBellsouth Telecommunications, LLC). According to the history given by the Defendant, his mother had started acting "quite wild" after the divorce, drinking and dating. 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. T.R.E. 39-13-204(d), specifically grants the State the right of closing. Id. Officer Tippens was one of the first officers on the scene the day the murder was discovered. Dr. Blake's testimony was that the head injuries would have rendered her unconscious. The Defendant insists that certain testimony of April Ward and her mother, Lettie Cruze, concerning statements made by the victim was inadmissible hearsay. 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. 1985). 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. She testified that the Defendant kicked in the bedroom door, which was locked. 39-2-203(i)(5) requiring torture or depravity of mind and should define "cruel," "torture" and "depravity." 757 F.2d at 1201. (13th ed.) 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 evidence fully supports the *544 jury's finding of the aggravating circumstance in 39-2-203(i)(5) (1982). April testified that she hated Jones because she had tried to separate her and the Defendant by going to her mother. 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. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Dr. Blake to give his opinions on what had caused these injuries. He was preceded in death by his parents Harmon and Alma Caughron, sisters Pauline,. 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. The lawyer was due back in court at 9:00 a.m. the next morning, approximately 13 hours later, ready for trial. denied, 444 U.S. 1013, 100 S. Ct. 661, 62 L. Ed. Dellinger v. United States, 474 U.S. 1005, 106 S. Ct. 524, 88 L. Ed. 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. 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. After working in a law firm briefly, he became a public defender, then worked as a trial lawyer in California. As they went down the hall to Jones's bedroom, April could hear her calling, "Who is it? 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. Leadership role overseeing approximately 40 technicians in a fast paced environment. 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." But in February, the City Council rejected the Cavallis . 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). United States v. Holmes, 722 F.2d 37, 40 (4th Cir.1983). Id. In accordance with the mandate of T.C.A. He pointed out that he and his co-counsel had had to consult with their client and his family before leaving the courthouse at 9:15 p.m. to return to Ogle's office, which was located in Jefferson City, some 40 miles away in an adjoining county. What are you doing?" 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. scientist Robert E. McFadden to the effect that the record was "full of proof" that the bedroom door had been knocked off its hinges. There was a gag tied across her mouth, and strips of the blue terry cloth had been wrapped tightly around her neck. There was a "patch" of "scraping type of injuries caused by some kind of slender linear object like whipping marks" on the left back side of her chest beneath her shoulder blades. At his last interview, when confronted with falsehoods in his prior statements, Caughron became upset and walked out of the room. According to April, Jones cried and pleaded with them not to hurt her, but the two told her she was going to die. See, e.g., State v. Robinson, 618 S.W.2d 754 (Tenn. Crim. 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. Apr 2016 - Sep 20182 years 6 months. 1976). Brooks v. State, 187 Tenn. 67, 213 S.W.2d 7, 10 (1948). denied sub nom. In turn, he denied knowing the victim, denied any involvement in her death, and denied his actions the day after the killing. George Edward Hardin. D. Paine, Tennessee Law of Evidence, 103.3 (2d ed. In this case, prejudice is clear. Taylor, of course, stands for the obvious proposition that on motion, "a[] statement of the witness that relates to the subject matter concerning which the witness has testified" must be "produce[d] for the examination and use of the moving party," but only "[a]fter [that] witness has testified on direct examination." 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. [6] Following the conclusion of April Ward's testimony, the trial judge attempted to rescue defense counsel from a later charge of ineffectiveness by commenting on the fact that Ogle had been handed "yellow sheets" of "check lists" by his investigator and noting, "I find counsel's assistance has been full, complete, meticulous as reflected by the questions put, as by the notes you should retain in case some question is raised at some later time about competency of counsel." 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. App. He was a member of Millican Grove Baptist Church where he attended and taught Sunday school for many years. 2d 119 (1969), the prosecuting attorney advised the witnesses to two robberies not to talk to anyone in his absence. State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 359 (Tenn. 1982). You're all set! 2d 1103 (1957). 2d 574 (1961), the Court said: Clancy, at 316, 81 S. Ct. at 648 quoting Jencks, supra, at 667, 77 S. Ct. at 1012-13 (citations omitted). Dr. Blake concluded that Jones had died as a result of asphyxiation while unconscious. See T.R.E. See Graves v. State, 489 S.W.2d 74, 81 (Tenn. Crim. He then struck her brutally and repeatedly about her head until, according to April Ward, she no longer moved. 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. Our examination of the record shows at least five occasions when Defendant objected to the State's questioning of Ward as leading. 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. 2d 1103 (1957). 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. See Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 106 S. Ct. 1758, 90 L. Ed. 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. Unable to complete the sex act with Jones, the Defendant suggested sex with April. Christy Jones Scott testified that her mother's toothbrush, a pink Oral-B brush, was missing after the killing. Edward was born on May 13 1911, in Obion County, Tn.. Alleen was born on November 17 1912, in Ridgely, Tn.. From the beginning, the police and the prosecution sought to shield April Ward and the information she had given them from the defendant's attorneys. To insist on honoring the due process rights of the accused is an obligation imposed on courts and the judicial system by the state and federal constitutions. Madison County JACKSON A Jackson man died yesterday morning in a single-vehicle accident in eastern Oklahoma, the Highway Patrol reported. 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. We are of the opinion that this senseless, and brutal killing clearly warrants the imposition of the death penalty. 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. 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 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. Defendant requested no further action and did not request the court to declare a mistrial. For example, in Starusko, supra, the court found that the impeachment of a "key government witness" was material because "his credibility may well be determinative of guilt or innocence . denied, 439 U.S. 873, 99 S. Ct. 207, 58 L. Ed. 1975). 2d 215 (1963), or Rule 16, T.R.Cr.P. Found email listings include: g***@ruidosohomesnland.com. As a result, defense counsel was not only prevented from gathering information that could have been developed from interviewing April Ward. When asked to decide whether suppressed evidence is material, the courts have generally held that "the materiality of the withheld evidence may depend on the closeness of the case." Several witnesses saw what they described as dried blood on him. *542 The trial court held him in contempt. Moreover, appellate judges are in a poor position to second-guess counsel on the question of whether a recess to permit full utilization of the statements in this case would have been efficacious. During the summer of 1988, Caughron himself gave law enforcement officers various statements. 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. 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 statements are] not that different [from each other]." Id. It was April's testimony that it was only after the victim stopped moving that the other abuse occurred. The next day, the trial judge refused to recess trial following April Ward's testimony on direct examination, despite counsel's representation that he had not had adequate time to review her pretrial statements and was unprepared to cross-examine her. 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. The phone lines to the house had been cut. Gammon v. State, 506 S.W.2d 188, 190 (Tenn. Crim. 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. Testimony about April's emotional reaction to the murder tends to bolster her credibility, as does testimony about her continued contact with the Defendant. April 27, 2023. 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. See also United States v. Peters, 732 F.2d 1004 (1st Cir.1984); United States v. Higgs, 713 F.2d 39, 44 (3d Cir.1983); United States v. Xheka, 704 F.2d 974, 981 (7th Cir.1983); United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321, 1346 (7th Cir. For the reasons set out above, I dissent from the majority's decision to affirm the defendant's conviction in this case. 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. To ensure against such an interpretation of the opinion in Jencks, the United States Congress enacted 18 U.S.C.A. 875 S.W.2d 253 (1994) | Cited 9 times . App. The Hinton court faulted the attorney for failing to seek "adequate time to make an informed tactical decision as to the use of the information contained in the [statements]," thereby producing "a harried trial attorney, attending to direct examination with one part of her consciousness, and with the *555 other rifling through the `massive Jencks material' in a hurried attempt to isolate and scan the relevant documents." The most serious episode of interjection occurred when the trial judge literally took over the questioning of the witness. memorial page for Mary Ann Caughron (14 Jul 1939-21 Aug 2016), Find a Grave Memorial ID 175889745, citing Memorial Park Cemetery, Memphis, Shelby County . April testified that she and the Defendant tried to wash the blood off their bodies in the river behind a store in Pigeon *532 Forge. One time when asked who had killed Ann Jones, Defendant stated, "Whoever done it needs help." 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. App. 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. 404(b). 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. Such statements may only be obtained under the limited provisions of existing law now contained in Rule 6(k)(2). The cause may be different, but the result is the same. 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. In Ingraldi, by failing to move for a continuance and then thoroughly cross-examining the witness, the defense counsel cured a potential Brady violation. Shortly before trial, the Defendant moved for a continuance on four grounds: (1) to take the testimony or deposition of George Tippens, an investigating officer who had moved to Florida; (2) to investigate additional suspects in the case whose names had been supplied to the defense on January 19, 1990; (3) to examine the door to the victim's bedroom; and (4) to permit FBI Agent Doug Dedrick to testify. 40-2044, enacted in 1968, permitted pretrial discovery of documents, photographs, and tangible objects. The government showed him all statements except the one in which the companion admitted the actual killing. Then, on June 22, 1988, they took the first of six statements they would obtain from April Ward. She described her nephew as "slow" and said that he had a good attitude since he had been in jail. Michael Caughron currently lives in Port Lavaca, TX; in the past Michael has also lived in Charleston SC. 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. It in no way minimizes the heinousness of the guilty party's conduct.
