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. It is axiomatic that a trial judge should exercise care not to express any thought that might lead the jury to infer that the judge is in favor of or against the defendant in a criminal trial. This request was denied, and April Ward's direct examination followed immediately. 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. 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. No hearsay was involved. In this case, prejudice is clear. 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. Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee - CourtListener.com Gary June Caughron v. State of Tennessee, 03C01-9707-CC-00301 (Tenn. Crim. For this reason, it would be necessary to hold that they constitute "plain error" in order to avoid a finding of waiver on the defendant's part and grant relief on either ground. See, e.g., Freeman v. State of *546 Georgia, 599 F.2d 65, 69 (5th Cir.1979), cert. After further discussion, during which the prosecution argued against further delay, the trial judge finally allowed counsel a ten-minute recess, which actually stretched into 16 minutes. 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. Falling somewhere along the continuum of cases illustrating prosecutorial interference with a defendant's right of access to witnesses are those cases in which a prosecutor has instructed a witness not to talk to defense counsel. Another time he said, "If I'm convicted of what I've done, someone will have to pay." He was an avid hunter and enjoyed making walking sticks. Gary Robert Caughron was born on month day 1933, at birth place, Missouri, to Edward Wright Caughron and Alleen Inez Caughron (born Long). Gary June Caughron vs. State of Tennessee (03C01-9707-CC-00301) Sevier Criminal John K. Byers, Sr.J. At trial, he testified that the Defendant appeared nervous and had a small cut on his face. Mountain City, TN Registered Sex Offenders - Page 6 Defendant argues that the failure of the trial court to ask April Ward whether she understood the difference between telling the truth and a lie and whether she comprehended the importance of telling the truth rendered the competency evaluation conducted before she testified inadequate. 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. The second best result is Gary Ray Caughron age 40s in Springfield, MO. A careful reading would consume much more than the two-hour estimate given in the majority opinion. According to April, Jones cried and pleaded with them not to hurt her, but the two told her she was going to die. Jerry Springer longtime syndicated talk-show host and former Cincinnati mayor died Thursday at his home in the suburbs of Chicago. [2] So long as a witness is of sufficient capacity to understand the obligation of an oath or affirmation, and some rule or statute does not provide otherwise, the witness is competent. This last statement was incorrect; but the proof elsewhere, including the photographs and McFadden's subsequent testimony as well as the court's own comments, made the mistake patent to the jury so that the Defendant could not have been prejudiced by the misstatement. 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. The record reveals, however, that the court was in the habit of telling the jurors that they did not have to look at potentially distasteful physical evidence, such as the cloth that had bound the victim, when it was passed to them. The Fourth Circuit noted in United States v. Smith Grading & Paving, Inc., 760 F.2d 527, 532 (4th Cir. 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. Join Facebook to connect with Gary Caughron and others you may know.
Beacon Theater View From My Seat,
Was Robin Williams In Auf Wiedersehen, Pet,
Checklist For Opening A Salon Suite,
Articles G
