There is therefore no merit to this part of the issue. 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. 1978). Because April Ward was effectively under "house arrest" during the months immediately before trial, this directive cut off any access that defense counsel might have had to this crucial witness during his investigation of the case and preparation for trial. Both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have rejected this and similar arguments. Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee - CourtListener.com Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 100 S. Ct. 1759, 1767, 64 L. Ed. Author of the National Bestseller INCLUSIFY. Brooks v. State, 187 Tenn. 67, 213 S.W.2d 7, 10 (1948). 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. Although the complete non-disclosure of significant exculpatory evidence often makes an easy case for a due process violation, delayed disclosure requires an inquiry into whether the delay prevented the defense from using the disclosed material effectively in preparing and presenting the defendant's case. 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. This was about 40% of all the recorded Caughron's in USA. He was 79. 1991), the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed a conviction after the district attorney sent letters to prospective witnesses asking them not to discuss the case without a government attorney present. The defendant must show that the state withheld favorable, material evidence and that its suppression was prejudicial to the defendant's case. App. Search Local Arrest Records 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." Taylor, 771 S.W.2d at 391. We find no reversible error. App. Sharon B Caughron. 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. For there can be no dispute, given the facts of this case, that the error committed by the trial court was prejudicial. When a prosecutor deliberately conceals a material witness and the defense is thereby prejudiced, a due process violation results. Furthermore, no prejudice has been shown. According to Green, the Defendant's childhood had been very unsettled. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S. Ct. 763, 766, 31 L. Ed. After working in a law firm briefly, he became a public defender, then worked as a trial lawyer in California. 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. 02/14/94 STATE TENNESSEE v. VICTOR JAMES CAZES . 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. Jones's legs and arms had been bound and tied to the bed with strips of blue terry cloth and pieces of sheer, off-white material like that used for table cloths and curtains. According to the history given by the Defendant, his mother had started acting "quite wild" after the divorce, drinking and dating. Sometime within the following two or three weeks, Christy Jones Scott discovered a silver, turquoise and coral ring with a thunderbird design lying on the ground beside her mother's truck, which was still parked at her mother's house. During the summer of 1988, Caughron himself gave law enforcement officers various statements. 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. Oklahoma troopers said Henry L. Boren, 80, apparently fell. While federal authority is not binding on Tennessee state courts, it is obviously persuasive in resolving disputes such as the one now before us, not only because the drafters of the Tennessee rule opted to follow the federal model so closely, but also because of the thoroughness the federal courts have brought to the analysis of Jencks disputes. 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. 404(b). *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. Gen. and Reporter, Merrilyn Feirman, Asst. This is one of the most brutal and sadistic killings this Court has reviewed. 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 2d 983 (1983). Carter v. Rafferty, 826 F.2d 1299, 1308 (3d Cir.1987). 369 F.2d at 189. 1982). 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. A due process violation requires more than the suppression of significant exculpatory evidence, however. I am authorized to say that Chief Justice REID joins in this opinion. See separate dissenting opinion. We are of the opinion that defense counsel, and his defense team, were given a reasonable opportunity to examine and prepare to use the statements in cross-examining April Ward. 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. The remainder may then be disclosed at trial under the provisions of Rule 26.2(a).". Harold Stoffell, a minister, testified that the Defendant had accepted the word of God, was respectful and was "the finest young prisoner I've ever saw." 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. Sometime after court adjourned at 7:15 p.m., the district attorney handed defense counsel a package containing the pretrial statements of all prospective witnesses for the state, including April Ward. GARY JUNE CAUGHRON. Although there is no general right to discovery in a criminal trial,[2] the United States Supreme Court has held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." 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. Sharon Caughron OfficialUSA.com Records Brown was a patrolman with the Sevier County Sheriff's Department who had investigated the Defendant when he received a call on July 13, 1987, about Defendant's car being in a ditch. at 78. The Defendant first avers that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance. Defendant requested no further action and did not request the court to declare a mistrial. 1985). 1987); State v. Howell, 698 S.W.2d 84, 86-87 (Tenn. Crim. 3500, known from the time of its passage in 1957 as the Jencks Act. 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. Dr. Stefanie K. Johnson. Gary Caughron Profiles | Facebook 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. Billy Strings Stays "California Sober" With Willie Nelson On New Single The majority here finds no error in the trial court's ruling. 2d 1304 (1959): Thus, federal law permits the courts to overlook Jencks violations only in the narrowest of circumstances:[7]. 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. There is sufficient corroboration; e.g., Jimmy Huskey's and Tom Bentley's testimony about the fabrics (blue terry cloth and lacy material) in the Defendant's possession; testimony of Defendant's appearance and behavior the morning after the murder; the presence of the turquoise ring at the victim's house; and Defendant's statements to his cell-mates, Roy Haynes, Bobby Floyd, and Tim McGaha. The most serious episode of interjection occurred when the trial judge literally took over the questioning of the witness. A plaster cast of a shoe print found outside the house was consistent with a boot owned by Kenneth Ogle. [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. 1975). Gary June Caughron. It is clear from the record that the trial court's decision to deny a recess was not due to any misunderstanding on his part about the crucial nature of April Ward's testimony. App. 669 F.2d at 11. 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. For the reasons set out above, I dissent from the majority's decision to affirm the defendant's conviction in this case. 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? In Nichols v. State, 581 So. Judy Caughron OfficialUSA.com Records 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. Dr. Madeline Pareau, a clinical psychologist, testified that Defendant's full IQ was 78, "just a little above mentally retarded classification." 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. The Defendant avers that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to ask leading questions of April Ward on direct examination. CAUGHRON, ROY W. - age 54, of Sevierville, passed away Friday, January 11, 2013. Michael Caughron was born on 09/19/1963 and is 59 years old. App. Caughron Name Meaning & Caughron Family History at Ancestry.com He is the linchpin of the prosecution's case." 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.