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. 2. 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. It did not provide for the production of statements by witnesses under any circumstances. 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. If the issue is not considered waived, there is no indication in the record and no reason to believe that the jurors who remained were prejudiced against the Defendant by the juror's remark, which was a comment upon counsel's repetitive questioning not upon the merits of the case. See separate dissenting opinion. 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. App. The defendant must show that the state withheld favorable, material evidence and that its suppression was prejudicial to the defendant's case. The trial court responded by pointing out that the defense team, consisting of attorneys Carl Ogle, Jr., Stephen Ward, and an investigator, had "had the statements overnight." Finally, April testified, Caughron insisted that they drink some of the victim's blood from shot glasses that he produced for the occasion. In the past, Michael has also been known as Michael G Caughron, Michael Gary Caughron, Mike G Caughron, Michael Cauchron and Michael Coughron. 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. App. DAUGHTREY, J., and REID, C.J., dissent. See, e.g., Freeman v. State of *546 Georgia, 599 F.2d 65, 69 (5th Cir.1979), cert. Gary June Caughron. denied, 444 U.S. 833, 100 S. Ct. 65, 62 L. Ed. View Gary June Caughron's Criminal Record Alias (es) Canghorn, Gary June 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. 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 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. [2] T.C.A. For example, in Clancy v. United States, 365 U.S. 312, 81 S. Ct. 645, 5 L. Ed. In United States v. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., 655 F. Supp. 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. Examination of the scene of the crime revealed that the door to the bedroom where the body was found had been forced open. As April described the scene, the Defendant turned Jones on her stomach and tried unsuccessfully to have sex with her. 40-2441, enacted in 1963, permitted pretrial discovery of a confession or statement against interest made by the accused. In Hinton, the defense attorney was "harried" through her own fault, while in this case counsel was "harried" by the action of the trial court. Obviously, the error in this case could not be considered harmless under any of the foregoing formulations. Madison County JACKSON A Jackson man died yesterday morning in a single-vehicle accident in eastern Oklahoma, the Highway Patrol reported. The week before the murder, according to April, she and the Defendant began talking about going to the victim's house. 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." denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103 S. Ct. 770, 74 L. Ed. Informing the jury that "[t]rue or untrue, you may consider that this conversation took place," the trial court overruled Defendant's objection. In my judgment, the violation of subsection (d) in this case is so clear that the only remaining question concerns the relief that should be granted in light of this error. [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. The evidence was clearly favorable to the defendant as impeachment evidence and also material to the issue of guilt, given the fact that the witness's testimony was the "linchpin of the case." The fact that the victim was tied and gagged, however, raises a question as to whether she was really unconscious during the subsequent abuse, as does the fact that she reportedly "tightened up" when the Defendant tried to achieve sexual penetration. Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196-97.
