729 F.2d at 260-61. 2d 119 (1969), the prosecuting attorney advised the witnesses to two robberies not to talk to anyone in his absence. Focused on developing the leaders of the future today. Under caselaw interpreting this statute, discovery of statements by witnesses other than the defendant was not permitted. at 41. The trial judge and a majority of this court apparently expect defense counsel to be able to prepare cross-examination from notes taken by an investigator (notes which the lawyer and the investigator may not have had a chance to discuss) while trial is actually in progress. 1980); see also State v. Taylor, 669 S.W.2d 694, 698-700 (Tenn. Crim. 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. Over the Defendant's objection the trial court allowed the State to recall the victim's daughter, Christy Jones Scott, to testify that her mother owned a collection of shot glasses and a pink Oral B toothbrush. 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. See Graves v. State, 489 S.W.2d 74, 81 (Tenn. Crim. That court found that "only in the context of either a complete deprivation of discovery or resulting prejudice" does a due process violation occur. In it, she disavowed any knowledge of the details of the murder, but made allegations that implicated Caughron, with whom she was no longer romantically engaged. App. App. 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. There is no merit to Defendant's assertion that the trial court's actions drew undue attention to this part of the charge. See also Boone v. Paderick, 541 F.2d 447 (4th Cir.1976); United States v. Sutton, 542 F.2d 1239 (4th Cir.1976). 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.") 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. Gary was born in Nevada, Mo., on Oct. 11, 1963, to Robert and Elizabeth (Wolf) Caughron. 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. Such statements may only be obtained under the limited provisions of existing law now contained in Rule 6(k)(2). 1985). The record shows that juror Jerry McGill was related to State's witness John Brown by marriage. Hence, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. Dr. Madeline Pareau, a clinical psychologist, testified that Defendant's full IQ was 78, "just a little above mentally retarded classification." 39-13-204(d), specifically grants the State the right of closing. 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. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the Defendant to object when questions were actually asked. 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. Having reached his professional and financial goals, he took an extended . (Another witness, Vicky Worth, testified that she had seen the Defendant drinking beer and smoking marijuana at a restaurant around 10 or 11 o'clock that night.) Over 20 years of Infrastructure and Application Systems Design, Implementation, Upgrades and Maintenance. The proof is ambiguous as to whether the State gave Defendant this statement under Rule 16. The court was also requested to have copies of all these files sealed and filed for any appeal. The testimony involving drug use, "satanic" sketches and listening to rock music, while corroborating statements made by the accomplice, should not have been admitted but there is no harmful error under the facts of this record since April Ward's testimony had already presented these features of the Defendant's character. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. The boot comment was one episode of this behavior. Hence, courts have suggested that both the Sixth Amendment's right to compulsory process, Id., and the right to confrontation are implicated in the violation of the procedural guarantees of Rule 26.2. 2d 30 (1977); State v. Brownell, 696 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tenn. Crim. Detective Bean did testify that on August 25, 1988, when he asked Defendant why he attempted to kill himself after Davenport had initially talked with him about Jones's murder, Defendant replied that he was depressed and had a lot on his mind. Noting the conclusions of the Seventh, Tenth, Third and Eighth Circuits, that court held that "[t]he point in the trial when a disclosure is made is not in itself determinative . [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." Search Local Arrest Records App. Three witnesses testified that the Defendant was in the habit of spray painting his "junker" cars different colors. 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 court found it "grossly unfair" to permit this kind of prosecutorial misconduct, which had "unfairly hampered the defendants' investigation." The government showed him all statements except the one in which the companion admitted the actual killing. The court stated: Id. 2d 641 (1980); Lockett v. Blackburn, 571 F.2d 309, 313 (5th Cir. 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. Officer Tippens was one of the first officers on the scene the day the murder was discovered. 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. [1] T.C.A. We find no reversible error. at 778. 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. 5249 HIGHWAY 67 WEST MOUNTAIN CITY, TN 37683. Madison County JACKSON A Jackson man died yesterday morning in a single-vehicle accident in eastern Oklahoma, the Highway Patrol reported. You're all set! App. Informing the jury that "[t]rue or untrue, you may consider that this conversation took place," the trial court overruled Defendant's objection. Respondent filed a reply in support of his motion on June 27, 2017 (Doc. Today, for the first time, we address what constitutes a sufficient time to review Rule 26.2 statements. Prior to trial, the court granted the Defendant's request for a competency hearing as to Ward, then seventeen, because she was a juvenile. This testimony, according to Defendant, would tend to show that the victim never had a chance to bring in her groceries before she died and thus was first attacked outside the house. [1] The action of the police in blocking pretrial access to the state's most crucial witness and the prosecution's failure to disclose summaries of her pretrial statements are not raised as discrete issues on appeal. Although the trial court told defense counsel that he could explore this situation "later at a proper time," counsel never did so. Defendant requested no further action and did not request the court to declare a mistrial. At least one state court has applied harmless error analysis to the violation of production rule. As they went down the hall to Jones's bedroom, April could hear her calling, "Who is it? For the reasons set out above, I dissent from the majority's decision to affirm the defendant's conviction in this case. Arterburn v. State, 216 Tenn. 240, 391 S.W.2d 648, 655 (1965); State v. Taylor, 645 S.W.2d 759, 762 (Tenn. Crim. He reminded the trial judge that he had not received the package of statements until after court adjourned the previous night. During *540 cross-examination of April Ward, when defense counsel asked Ward why she had lied to law enforcement officers regarding whom she had told about the crime, a juror whispered loudly, "What's the difference?" He told McGaha that he had been drunk and partying the night of the murder. Get free summaries of new Tennessee Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! 601, see also T.C.A. 855 S.W.2d 526 (1993) | Cited 4 times. The Defendant next avers that the trial court erred in unduly restricting his direct examination of T.B.I. The defendant must show that the state withheld favorable, material evidence and that its suppression was prejudicial to the defendant's case. 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. 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. View Gina Caughron's record in Walland, TN including current phone number, address, relatives, background check report, and property record with Whitepages. (13th ed.) Because the original Jencks opinion was founded on the United States Supreme Court's supervisory powers, and not on constitutional grounds, a denial of that right does not, per se, result in constitutional error. Pique v. State, supra, 480 S.W.2d at 550-551. 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. 1985); State v. Hardin, 691 S.W.2d 578, 581 (Tenn. Crim. She described her nephew as "slow" and said that he had a good attitude since he had been in jail. App. Moreover, the inconsistent statements of a witness are considered impeachment evidence favorable to a defendant. App. But in February, the City Council rejected the Cavallis . 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. Gary June Caughron. But this is not a routine case it is a capital case, one in which the defendant was ultimately sentenced to execution, based entirely on the testimony of 16-year-old April Ward, an accomplice who had given police a total of six contradictory statements, all of which had been systematically withheld from defense counsel despite legitimate efforts, both informal and formal, to obtain them prior to and at the time of trial. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. 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. 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. Finally, April testified, Caughron insisted that they drink some of the victim's blood from shot glasses that he produced for the occasion. The physical and psychological demands on an attorney in trial, especially a criminal trial involving a capital offense, are heavy. Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196-97. Over the course of these interviews, the Defendant became more and more nervous. 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. 4 Samuel Frank Downey vs. State of Tennessee (03C01-9801-CR-00027) Hamilton Criminal Douglas Meyer 218154 Joseph M. Tipton Further, the Federal rule treats law enforcement officials as witnesses called by the state, but the commission elected not to adopt this provision. He also objects to Cruze's testimony that the Defendant "sneaked around" her house for some period of time after the murder. Our examination of the record shows at least five occasions when Defendant objected to the State's questioning of Ward as leading. Courts will find prejudice, however, when defendant's pre-trial preparation is hampered by the inability of counsel to assess the credibility of witnesses. A list of the contradictions in the six statements and the development of a strategy for their effective use on cross-examination would, of course, take even longer. Edward was born on May 13 1911, in Obion County, Tn.. Alleen was born on November 17 1912, in Ridgely, Tn.. Carter v. Rafferty, 826 F.2d 1299, 1308 (3d Cir.1987). denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103 S. Ct. 770, 74 L. Ed. 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. The Defendant suggested that April accompany Jones to her house after *531 work and give him directions on how to get there. 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. Their efforts are unappreciated by the public generally and undercompensated by the justice system they serve. 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." In reaching this conclusion, I do not wish to minimize in any way the wholly reprehensible nature of the homicide committed in this case, against an innocent and ultimately helpless victim. The court, finding "nothing that unfairly affected or handicapped appellants in preparation for trial," held that due process was not violated because defendant could show no prejudice to his case. Noting that the statements were admitted falsehoods, the trial court refused to allow their introduction. 2d 1103 (1957). 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. denied, 444 U.S. 833, 100 S. Ct. 65, 62 L. Ed. In Dr. Pareau's opinion, Caughron had received inadequate parenting, and there had been no consistency in his relationships. The Fourth Circuit noted in United States v. Smith Grading & Paving, Inc., 760 F.2d 527, 532 (4th Cir. After looking at a newspaper article mentioning the homicide, the Defendant told Haynes that he thought his girlfriend was "snitching" on him. Christy Jones Scott testified that her mother's toothbrush, a pink Oral-B brush, was missing after the killing. 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 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. As April described the scene, the Defendant turned Jones on her stomach and tried unsuccessfully to have sex with her. The evidence fully supports the *544 jury's finding of the aggravating circumstance in 39-2-203(i)(5) (1982). 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. Tennessee had the highest population of Caughron families in 1840. 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. United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 356, 89 S. Ct. 528, 533, 21 L. Ed. *533 Three inmates who had been incarcerated with the Defendant in the Sevier and Cocke County jails testified about statements that he had made to them concerning the victim and her death. As a result, defense counsel was not only prevented from gathering information that could have been developed from interviewing April Ward. Later that same morning, several witnesses saw the Defendant when he arrived at Settler's Village around 10:00-11:00 a.m. Caughron was wearing only cut-off jeans and tennis shoes; he had scratches on his back, stomach and face. He also told McGaha he had lost a ring. Our Court in interpreting Rule 26.2 has held that even in a capital case, the State is not required to produce witness statements until the conclusion of the witness's testimony on direct examination. ), cert. 40-2441, enacted in 1963, permitted pretrial discovery of a confession or statement against interest made by the accused. The police department and the district attorney's office clearly understood April Ward's significance as a prosecution witness. The Defendant says that the court was disparaging the Defendant's evidence. The FBI developed no forensic evidence implicating Caughron, despite extensive testing on fingerprints, shoeprints, blood and other fluids, and fibers. 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. App. He also contends that this evidence was irrelevant. 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. 378. Near the end of the direct examination, during a break in testimony taken to deal with an unrelated question, Ogle noted that it was 4:05 p.m.; he again reminded the trial judge that he had not had an opportunity to read all of April's prior statements; and he said, "I would ask the Court to allow me to start my cross-examination in the morning, because I am not prepared and there's no way in the world I can cross-examine this witness today." 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. During the course of their investigation, the police directed April Ward's mother, Lettie Cruze, not to permit April to talk with defense counsel. 2d 82; or where the statement is not exculpatory and there was no advantage to the government in non-production, United States v. Principe, 499 F.2d 1135 (1st Cir.1974). The admission of expert testimony is largely in the discretion of the trial judge. There was no abuse of discretion here. 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. 39-13-204(i)(5) [previously 39-2-203(i)(5)]. App. 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. At the hearing, the trial judge asked Ward some general questions, some questions about how she was doing in school and how her counseling was proceeding, and some questions about her awareness of her testimony. There was a gag tied across her mouth, and strips of the blue terry cloth had been wrapped tightly around her neck. 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. In the past, Gary has also been known as Gary L Caughorn, Gary L Aughron and Gary L Caughron. It points out the obvious that April Ward's testimony not only made her the prosecution's "linchpin witness," but also constituted virtually the entire case for the state. [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. 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. See Baxter v. State, 503 S.W.2d 226, 230 (Tenn. Crim. Knoxville, Tennessee. NECX PO 5000 MOUNTAIN CITY, TN 37683. We find no reversible error in the court's conduct during McFadden's testimony. State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 359 (Tenn. 1982). 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.
Valerie De Leon Nouman Ali Khan Marriage,
Mish Michaels Wellesley,
How To Play Pre Ordered Games Early On Ps5,
Soulsonic Force Members,
Articles G