Frazier v. Cupp

Background

A man was convicted of second-degree murder in Oregon for a 1964 killing. He had been tried jointly with his cousin, Jerry Lee Rawls, who pleaded guilty. Before trial, defense counsel warned the prosecutor that Rawls would claim the right not to testify, but the prosecutor summarized what he expected Rawls would say in his opening statement. Rawls later took the stand briefly and asserted his right not to answer. The defendant also made a taped confession after questioning, and police seized clothing from a duffel bag used by both men with Rawls’ and his mother’s consent.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether these events violated the defendant’s rights. It said the opening-summary of Rawls’ expected remarks differed from cases where a co-defendant’s confession was read on the stand and where limiting instructions were ineffective; the brief appearance and jury instruction made the opening less damaging. On the confession, the Court found Miranda did not apply and Escobedo was not triggered because the lawyer request was ambiguous, and the confession was voluntary under the totality of circumstances. As to the duffel bag, Rawls had apparent authority to consent and the police lawfully seized clothing found there. Because none of the claimed errors amounted to constitutional error, the Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

Real world impact

The decision leaves the murder conviction intact and upholds the trial’s evidence rulings. It shows that a prosecutor’s reasonable summary of expected testimony in an opening may not automatically require reversal. It also affirms that ambiguous requests for a lawyer do not always stop questioning, and that consent by a joint user can justify searches of shared property.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices (Warren and Douglas) concurred in the result only; one Justice (Fortas) did not participate.