Nevertheless, when the state instructs a witness not to talk to defense counsel and defendant's trial preparation is thereby hindered, or other prejudice results, due process may be violated. 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. 608 and 609, the trial court is given broad discretion in the timing of its decisions on the admissibility of evidence. There was a gag tied across her mouth, and strips of the blue terry cloth had been wrapped tightly around her neck. The key witness in this case was April Marie Ward, who was 14 years old at the time of the killing. On cross-examination, however, she conceded that Caughron was not insane and could conform his conduct to the dictates of the law. April said that the Defendant tightened the terry cloth strip around Jones's neck, causing the victim to gasp. He also asked April to watch Jones as she closed her shop and see where she put her money, and to find out if Jones was married and had a telephone or pets. The State asserts that it did. She said that the Defendant instructed her to bring a towel and a knife "to gut" Ann Jones. In D. Paine, Tennessee Law of Evidence, 611.6 (2nd ed. 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 testimony concerning the pool stick, the table cloth material, and slapping women on the buttocks was relevant to connect Defendant to this crime and corroborate the accomplice's testimony. App. 2d 398 (1980). In turn, he denied knowing the victim, denied any involvement in her death, and denied his actions the day after the killing. 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. The admission of expert testimony is largely in the discretion of the trial judge. 1987); State v. Howell, 698 S.W.2d 84, 86-87 (Tenn. Crim. Houston, Texas, United States. 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. 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. United States v. Hinton, 631 F.2d 769, 771, 778-780 (D.C. Cir.1980). According to Green, the Defendant's childhood had been very unsettled. 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. 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. Also, the language of T.R.E. 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." Gary J. Aguirre is an American lawyer, former investigator with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and whistleblower . The Defendant insists that certain testimony of April Ward and her mother, Lettie Cruze, concerning statements made by the victim was inadmissible hearsay. The trial court found as a matter of fact that the attorney had received the witness statements at 7:45 p.m. on the first night of trial. The court therefore specifically instructed the jury that it had acted, not to emphasize that part of the charge, but to "comport exactly" with the law. 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." Gen., Nashville, Al Schmutzer, Jr., Dist. ", Jimmy Lynn Huskey testified that in 1986, when he and the Defendant were friends, the Defendant had a pool stick that came apart like the one Ward had described and that Defendant kept light-colored lace table cloth or curtain material in his car similar to the sheer material used to tie up Jones. For example, in Kines v. Butterworth, 669 F.2d 6 (1st Cir.1981), cert. 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. See State v. Jenkins, 733 S.W.2d 528, 532 (Tenn. Crim. 5249 HIGHWAY 67 WEST MOUNTAIN CITY, TN 37683. v. The FBI developed no forensic evidence implicating Caughron, despite extensive testing on fingerprints, shoeprints, blood and other fluids, and fibers. His stepfather, for example, had beaten him and humiliated him for bedwetting. Gary Caughronwas born on 03/07/1955 and is 67 years old. April 27, 2023. 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. denied, 444 U.S. 1013, 100 S. Ct. 661, 62 L. Ed. 1981). 24-1-101 was repealed in 1991 (Caughron was tried in 1990). However, the officers were not eyewitnesses; their testimony contained no surprises; counsel did not request a recess after the direct examinations; and cross-examination of the witnesses was thorough. Ann Jones ran the Wild Hare Tee Shirt Shop in this same shopping center. 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. Boulder, CO. Jeff Conte. 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. Pique v. State, supra, 480 S.W.2d at 550-551. He was a member of Millican Grove Baptist Church where he attended and taught Sunday school for many years. 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. 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. Again defense counsel indicated he would address any problem later but apparently failed to do so. 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. What is not *551 included in the majority opinion is a recitation of the procedural background of the trial, putting in context the "Jencks motion" made by defense counsel at various points during the proceedings. Thus, a reviewing court must consider the materiality of the withheld evidence in light of the other evidence presented. The defendant must show that the state withheld favorable, material evidence and that its suppression was prejudicial to the defendant's case. Although April's testimony was confused as to exact chronology, it appears that at some point, Jones was gagged to stop her screaming and tied up with the strips of towel and sheer material. Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Knoxville. 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. Allowing the recall of a witness is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will only be disturbed upon a showing of abuse of discretion. The trial court refused to continue the case because Tippens' testimony would be cumulative in light of the fact that there were several other investigating officers who should have possessed the same knowledge. 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. at 770). See State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 368 (Tenn. 1982), cert. Furthermore, no prejudice has been shown. 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. Gary Caughroncurrently lives in Capitan, NM; in the past Gary has also lived in Ruidoso NM. In United States v. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., 655 F. Supp. C. Robert Caughron 21 Aug 1925 Webb City, Jasper, Missouri, United States - 17 Dec 1989 Willis Caughron abt 1815 Kentucky, United States - abt 1861 managed by Larry Shelley last edited 30 May 2021 William Caughron abt 1784 Virginia, United States A careful reading would consume much more than the two-hour estimate given in the majority opinion. 39-13-204(i)(5) [previously 39-2-203(i)(5)]. Second, despite the trial court's assessment of the statements in question as "not that complex," "not that different" from one another, and containing "nothing worthwhile, relevant or germane," a review of April Ward's statements demonstrates clearly that they were a powerful source of ammunition with which to impeach her testimony, had defense counsel been permitted the time necessary to review them and prepare his cross-examination in light of their content. We agree with those circuits holding that a defendant must show that the failure to earlier disclose prejudiced him because it came so late that the information disclosed could not be effectively used at trial." He apologized to the trial judge for having to ask for a recess, and indicated that the defense had tried to avoid the delay by seeking pretrial discovery of the witnesses' statements, an effort that had proved unsuccessful. Gammon v. State, 506 S.W.2d 188, 190 (Tenn. Crim. Again, the import of this testimony was that the conversation between April's mother and the victim occurred, not that the victim's statement was true. 1973). 2d 1245 (Ala. Cr.App. For there can be no dispute, given the facts of this case, that the error committed by the trial court was prejudicial. Although the duty of the trial court to order a recess under subsection (d) is couched in permissive terms, the federal cases make it clear that failure to permit counsel reasonable time for review constitutes error. In judging whether a defendant has been denied due process by the state's directive to a potential witness not to talk to defense counsel, the courts use an analysis much like that used in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. Agent Davenport did not testify about the attempted suicide. Over 20 years of Infrastructure and Application Systems Design, Implementation, Upgrades and Maintenance. 40-2441, enacted in 1963, permitted pretrial discovery of a confession or statement against interest made by the accused. We find no error with regard to the trial court's refusal to instruct the jurors that they should presume that the sentence they assess will actually be carried out that if a life sentence is imposed, a life sentence will be served and, likewise, that if the death penalty is assessed, the Defendant will be executed. Public records show that the phone number (478) 923-6928 is linked to Gary S Caughron, Jennae M Drane. While the defendant's lead attorney did cross-examine April Ward at trial, there is no way to measure how much more vigorous and effective his cross-examination might have been if he had been able to interview the witness in person prior to trial, or had been furnished with her prior inconsistent statements in response to his timely discovery motion, or had been given an adequate opportunity to review those statements and use them to prepare an effective cross-examination following her testimony on direct examination, all of which he was entitled to do under state and federal law and under our rules of procedure. He was an avid hunter and enjoyed making walking sticks. Defendant's next objection was to the testimony of April's mother that the victim had told her that as a rule she did not get involved in other people's affairs but that she thought "April was a sweet little girl and she didn't trust Gary Caughron." Similar beating of a victim was held to support a finding of aggravating circumstance (i)(5) in State v. Barber, 753 S.W.2d 659, 668 (Tenn. 1988); State v. McNish, 727 S.W.2d 490, 494 (Tenn. 1987); and State v. Cone, 665 S.W.2d 87, 94-95 (Tenn. 1984). He then declared her competent to testify. 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. The factual background of the state's case against Gary Caughron is set out in detail in the majority opinion. The Defendant avers that the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial because of a juror's comments. 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. 378. But, at least initially, she was not a cooperative witness. Grady B Caughron of Johnson City, Washington County, Tennessee was born on December 25, 1919, and died at age 87 years old on May 19, 2007. With a few exceptions, see, e.g., Tenn.R.Evid. George Cleveland Roach. The prosecution did, however, insist that she be kept at home and then took advantage of her vulnerability and fear of punishment by advising her mother not to let April discuss the case with the defendant's attorneys. Its language was also incorporated into Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26. No. The majority opinion contains a brief history of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2 and its genesis in federal law, and a passing reference to State v. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d 387 (Tenn. 1989), the only reported decision of this Court directly interpreting Rule 26.2. It was only the first in a series of efforts to thwart defense access to information about the case. 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. 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. 1985). The cause may be different, but the result is the same. See Baxter v. State, 503 S.W.2d 226, 230 (Tenn. Crim. The government showed him all statements except the one in which the companion admitted the actual killing. 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. Less than ten minutes later, he completed his questioning and tendered the witness to the defense for cross-examination. Nos. 757 F.2d at 1201. Knoxville, Tennessee. In that 13-hour interval, he was called upon to confer with his client, to spend the patter part of two hours driving to and from his out-of-county office, to review the day's events with his co-counsel, to prepare his opening statement for the next morning, and to tend to such personal matters as eating, sleeping, and maintaining personal hygiene. 73 (D.Colo. In the early afternoon of July 11, 1987, Christy Jones Scott, the daughter of the victim, 42-year-old Ann Robertson Jones, discovered her mother's partially clothed body lying facedown on a bed in her home in Pigeon Forge. In lieu of flowers, the family is . This is not a statutory aggravating circumstance although it is similar to the circumstance in T.C.A. As April described the scene, the Defendant turned Jones on her stomach and tried unsuccessfully to have sex with her. 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. See also Tenn. R.Evid. The Fourth Circuit noted in United States v. Smith Grading & Paving, Inc., 760 F.2d 527, 532 (4th Cir. Obviously, the error in this case could not be considered harmless under any of the foregoing formulations. Furthermore, the court's actions did not reflect the trial court's views on the Defendant's innocence or its opinion of the merit of Defendant's proof. denied, 396 U.S. 865, 90 S. Ct. 143, 24 L. Ed. 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. 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 . 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 lawyer was due back in court at 9:00 a.m. the next morning, approximately 13 hours later, ready for trial. It makes no provision for two hours of travel, for time that the attorney spent consulting with his colleagues and his client, for time devoted to planning trial strategy for the next day (including opening argument), or for a reasonable period of time for rest and sustenance. At his last interview, when confronted with falsehoods in his prior statements, Caughron became upset and walked out of the room. (Doc. 94-626-II Joseph M. Tipton Affirmed Rule 11 Denied - Application of Gary June Caughron. Read More 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." *529 Charles W. Burson, Atty. 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 the reasons set out above, I dissent from the majority's decision to affirm the defendant's conviction in this case. 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. Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee - CourtListener.com Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee, 03C01-9707-CC-00301 (Tenn. Crim. The Defendant taunted the victim, despite her pleading, "Please don't hurt me," and told her she was going to die. The majority then correctly identifies the question of first impression we face in this case: Given the provision in Rule 26.2(d) permitting a "recess in the trial for the examination of such statement and for preparation of its use in the trial", was counsel in this case afforded a reasonable opportunity to examine April Ward's prior statements and prepare for her cross-examination? See generally United States v. Starusko, 729 F.2d 256 (3d Cir.1984). 404(b). [7] The federal courts have held a Jencks violation harmless only where the statement and the witness's testimony are consistent, United States v. Tashjian, 660 F.2d 829 (1st Cir.1981); where the statement is of marginal value, because the witness is not an integral part of the government's case, United States v. Weidman, 572 F.2d 1199 (7th Cir.1978); where the statement contains only cumulative material, i.e., it is the same as the information in grand jury transcripts that have already been disclosed, United States v. Anthony, 565 F.2d 533 (8th Cir.1977); where lost notes would have supported the prosecution's case, United States v. Miranda, 526 F.2d 1319 (2nd Cir.1975), cert. Despite assertions that he had been informed that the State had failed and refused to disclose certain material, Defendant never requested the court to examine any specific document or evidence. The record shows that juror Jerry McGill was related to State's witness John Brown by marriage. 3(e), that all of these alleged errors except that involving the Defendant's drawings of demons have been waived because of the failure to raise them in the motion for new trial. His father, whom Pareau described as "overtly psychotic," was an alcoholic and had physically abused his mother until their divorce. 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. The actual damage to defendant's trial preparation is incapable of qualitative assessment, but defense counsel's efforts to secure copies of April Ward's statement(s) prior to trial, as well as his repeated requests for time to review the statements provided to him the night before her direct examination, suggest that unlike the efforts of the attorneys in several of the cases discussed above, Caughron's counsel's efforts to defend his client were hampered by the complete lack of access to the state's crucial witness. [Emphasis added.] There are, however, two other differences that deserve comment. In accordance with the mandate of T.C.A. App. For example, in Clancy v. United States, 365 U.S. 312, 81 S. Ct. 645, 5 L. Ed. Prior to trial, the court granted the Defendant's request for a competency hearing as to Ward, then seventeen, because she was a juvenile. Dr. Blake stated that these represented a "hard slap injury to the buttock" inflicted while the victim was still alive. The trial judge's actions were unnecessary but did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial or prejudice him in any way. 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). Several witnesses saw what they described as dried blood on him. Hinton, supra, at 780. For example, in Gregory v. United States, 369 F.2d 185 (D.C. Cir.1966), remanded, 410 F.2d 1016 (D.C. Cir.1969), cert. App. He picked her up sometime after midnight. She described her nephew as "slow" and said that he had a good attitude since he had been in jail. On their way to Ann Jones's house April and the Defendant drank alcohol and took drugs. Defendant has not done this and we find no error. Get free summaries of new Tennessee Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! 39-13-206(c)(1)(D) [formerly T.C.A. The court in the present case, however, was unusually active in directing the form that questioning should take. denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103 S. Ct. 770, 74 L. Ed. App. Gary was born in Nevada, Mo., on Oct. 11, 1963, to Robert and Elizabeth (Wolf) Caughron. 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). Informing the jury that "[t]rue or untrue, you may consider that this conversation took place," the trial court overruled Defendant's objection. 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. I conclude, to the contrary, that the combined action of the police, the prosecutors, and the trial judge operated effectively to deprive the defendant of his right to due process.[1]. Troy Gene Caughron, age 81 of Pigeon Forge, passed away Saturday, December 20, 2014. It did not provide for the production of statements by witnesses under any circumstances. He was an oil field inspec T.C.A. 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 Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345, 362, 79 S. Ct. 1217, 1221, 1229-30, 3 L. Ed. After working in a law firm briefly, he became a public defender, then worked as a trial lawyer in California. On the afternoon of Friday, July 10, around 3:00 or 4:00 p.m., the Defendant came by April's house in an older model green and white 442 Oldsmobile Cutlass that he had just purchased. 2d 297 (1973), and F.R.E. 1986), a court ordered the witnesses to submit to depositions in order to cure the problem. Author of the National Bestseller INCLUSIFY. Three witnesses testified that the Defendant was in the habit of spray painting his "junker" cars different colors. The time needed for a reasonable examination is necessarily related to the length and complexity of the statements. 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. 111-129.) The expectations placed on defense counsel in this case were completely unrealistic, and they resulted in a deprivation of due process with respect to his client. 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 Defendant avers that the trial court erred in not permitting him to make the final closing argument at sentencing. The police department and the district attorney's office clearly understood April Ward's significance as a prosecution witness. For persons dying between 1940-1997, you can order a copy of the death certificate via Ancestry.com for a fee. 601, see also T.C.A. See, e.g., United States v. Polisi, 416 F.2d 573 (2d Cir.1969); United States v. Shaffer, 789 F.2d 682, 689 (9th Cir.1986). When, in the summer of 1988, Tim McGaha had asked the Defendant if he had committed the murder, Caughron "just smiled." Having reached his professional and financial goals, he took an extended . He told April that he would return that night and that the two would go to the victim's house as planned. The statements here were produced the evening before direct and cross-examination took place the following afternoon. Associate Professor . In Dr. Pareau's opinion, Caughron had received inadequate parenting, and there had been no consistency in his relationships. App. Noting that the statements were admitted falsehoods, the trial court refused to allow their introduction. Even though the trial court explained to him that as long as he testified truthfully he would not be committing perjury, Phillips refused to testify. These facts undeniably satisfy the definition of depravity of mind in State v. Williams, 690 S.W.2d at 529, and illustrate a "consciousness materially more `depraved' than that of any person guilty of murder." [Emphasis added.] 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. Defendant requested no further action and did not request the court to declare a mistrial. 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. In Ingraldi, by failing to move for a continuance and then thoroughly cross-examining the witness, the defense counsel cured a potential Brady violation. 2d 537 (1969). 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. 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.