After working in a law firm briefly, he became a public defender, then worked as a trial lawyer in California. See, e.g., State v. Robinson, 618 S.W.2d 754 (Tenn. Crim. Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Knoxville. 94-626-II Joseph M. Tipton Affirmed Rule 11 Denied - Application of Gary June Caughron. For example, in a case very close on its facts to the one now before us, the prosecution turned over Jencks material to defense counsel on a Sunday morning at 10:00 a.m., preceding the start of a three-day trial the next day, Monday. 2d at 1249 (citing Gallman, 195 So. Under T.R.E. 2d 1287 (1959). 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. In September 1986, he had broken into the victim's home and at knifepoint had pushed Teresa to the bed and attempted to tie her hands with strips of sheet. 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. The Defendant gave April a survival knife. That court noted that the witnesses were "particularly vulnerable to suggestion and anxious not to offend the prosecutors" because they were concerned that they, too, could be indicted. 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 The Defendant also challenges comments by the court during the direct examination of T.B.I. In pertinent part, the Tennessee Rule reads as follows:[4]. View Gary June Caughron's Criminal Record Alias (es) Canghorn, Gary June At the very least, the majority should offer some guidance on the nature and extent of the trial court's discretion in this area of *550 the law and should set standards for determining when an abuse of that discretion has occurred. 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. April Ward's mother, Lettie Marie Cruze, worked at the Turquoise Jewelry Shop in Settler's Village, a group of shops in Pigeon Forge. 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. Id. 3500, known from the time of its passage in 1957 as the Jencks Act. See, e.g., Freeman v. State of *546 Georgia, 599 F.2d 65, 69 (5th Cir.1979), cert. Krilich v. United States, 502 F.2d 680 (7th Cir.1974). 39-13-204(d), specifically grants the State the right of closing. Although instructing a witness not to talk with defense counsel may constitute a due process violation, some courts, emphasizing the requirement of prejudice, have found no constitutional error when the defendant does not appear to have been harmed by the misconduct. 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. Byrnes v. United States, 327 F.2d 825, 832 (9th Cir.1964). Regarding the need to investigate persons named as suspects in certain statements given to the defense by the State on January 19, 1990, the Defendant failed to show the materiality and relevance of any evidence such an investigation would yield. We do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant Defendant's motion for a continuance. See, e.g., Bryant v. State, 539 S.W.2d 816, 819 (Tenn. Crim. Further, our comparative proportionality review convinces us that the sentence of death is neither excessive nor disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the nature of the crime and the Defendant. Today, for the first time, we address what constitutes a sufficient time to review Rule 26.2 statements. She said that he had been in special education classes, where he had done well. Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 26.2(a) (emphasis added). 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. Ogle had been a boyfriend of Teresa Goad, one of the victim's daughters. 138.) The first was his aunt, Gladys Green, who told how his mother and father had divorced when the Defendant was three or four years old. 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. 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. 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. He also objects to Cruze's testimony that the Defendant "sneaked around" her house for some period of time after the murder. Thus, a reviewing court must consider the materiality of the withheld evidence in light of the other evidence presented.
Frank Brickowski Wife,
Kaiser South San Francisco Covid Vaccine Clinic,
Low Income Senior Housing Independence, Mo,
Articles G
