Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-19-01514/USCOURTS-ca3-19-01514-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General Pennsylvania
Appellee
Albert Frazier
Appellant
Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 19-1514

_____________

ALBERT FRAZIER,

 Appellant

v.

SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA 

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-14-cv-0872)

District Judge: Hon. David S. Cercone

_______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

January 17, 2020

Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: January 21, 2020)

_______________

OPINION

_______________

 

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, 

does not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 19-1514 Document: 48 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2020
2

JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

Albert James Frazier appeals the dismissal of his habeas petition. He argues that

the limitations placed on his cross-examination of a key government witness infringed his 

rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. We disagree and will affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises from a drug sale turned violent. On October 2, 2004, Frazier led 

two men to believe he was going to engage in a drug transaction with them. His two 

counterparts drove to the designated place, and when they arrived, Frazier and another 

man entered the back seat of the car while a third man stood in front of the car. When the 

driver of the car turned to look behind him, Frazier pointed a gun at him and told him not 

to move. Gunfire erupted. The driver stepped on the gas pedal, and the car went over a 

hill and crashed. Though wounded, both the driver and the passenger were able to exit 

the car. The driver survived, but the passenger died from his wounds. Frazier was 

charged with criminal homicide, two counts of criminal conspiracy, criminal attempt, 

aggravated assault, and a violation of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act. 

At trial, the driver of the car testified, identifying Frazier as one of his assailants. 

The driver was facing drug charges based on a subsequent incident, and, before the driver 

was called as a witness, the prosecution sought to exclude questioning about those 

charges. Frazier’s counsel objected, pointing to the scheduling of the driver’s case, and 

saying “every time that our case is listed for trial, his case ... gets postponed.” (App. at 

186a.) In an in limine ruling, the trial court instructed, “You may ask if he has any 

Case: 19-1514 Document: 48 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2020
3

criminal matters pending. If he says yes, you may then ask if he expects any 

consideration from the Commonwealth for his testimony here without detail as to charge, 

without detail as to amounts of drugs or anything else.” (App. at 187a.)

On direct examination, anticipating the defense cross-examination, the prosecutor 

asked the driver whether he had received “any consideration on any of [his] pending 

cases to testify” against Frazier. (App. at 230a.) The driver said he had not. On crossexamination, defense counsel began by asking “you have a few pending cases, is that 

correct?” (App. at 233a.) The driver first responded that he didn’t “want to talk about 

that,” but subsequently confirmed that he had two cases pending. (App. at 233a.) 

Defense counsel then said: “Now, we can’t get into the cases. I am not asking you to 

divulge anything about the cases. I do want to discuss the timing, however.” (App. at 

233a.) The prosecution then objected on the basis of the court’s previous in limine 

ruling. Defense counsel explained that he had evidence of “the postponements and ... the 

court docket which would indicate that every time this case comes up for trial, his [the 

driver’s] case follows. [Frazier’s] case gets postponed, that case gets postponed until just 

after this homicide. I am simply asking him if he had expectations of that.” (App. at 

234a.) The court responded that the objection was sustained, and defense counsel 

resumed questioning the driver on another line of inquiry. 

A jury found Frazier guilty on all charges, and he was sentenced to life 

imprisonment for murder, plus twenty to forty years of imprisonment on the other 

charges. Frazier appealed, and the Superior Court affirmed his conviction. Frazier 

subsequently sought post-conviction relief in state court under Pennsylvania’s Post 

Case: 19-1514 Document: 48 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/21/2020
4

Conviction Collateral Relief Act, which was denied by the Court of Common Pleas, and 

affirmed by the Superior Court. Thereafter, Frazier filed his federal habeas petition, 

which the District Court dismissed. We granted a certificate of appealability on the issue 

of whether Frazier’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated when the trial court

limited his cross-examination of the driver and whether the federal constitutional aspect 

of that claim was properly exhausted in the state courts. 

II. DISCUSSION1

Whether or not Frazier failed to exhaust his Confrontation Clause arguments in 

state court, he has not satisfied the standards of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) to show that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated when 

the trial court restricted his counsel’s questioning of the driver. 

Under AEDPA, when a prisoner petitions for relief from a state court judgment in 

a habeas proceeding, we will not grant relief “unless the adjudication of the claim ... 

result[s] in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, 

clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United 

States[.]”

2 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Frazier’s argument thus depends on Supreme Court 

case law interpreting the Confrontation Clause.

 

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). “Where, as here, the District 

Court based its rulings on the evidence contained in the state court record and did not 

conduct an evidentiary hearing or engage in any independent fact-finding, our review of 

the District Court’s decision is plenary.” Wilkerson v. Superintendent Fayette SCI, 871 

F.3d 221, 227 (3d Cir. 2017).

2 Another basis for habeas relief under AEDPA arises when a state court ruling 

Case: 19-1514 Document: 48 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/21/2020
5

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right “to be confronted with the 

witnesses against him[.]” U.S. Const. amend. VI. That right includes the right to crossexamine witnesses. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315 (1974). But that right is not 

unconditional. The Supreme Court has instructed that “the Confrontation Clause 

guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is 

effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” Delaware v. 

Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986) (quoting Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20 

(1985) (per curiam)). It “does not grant unfettered rights to cross-examine witnesses.” 

United States v. Friedman, 658 F.3d 342, 356 (3d Cir. 2011).

Consequently, the Confrontation Clause does not rob trial judges of the ability to 

limit cross-examination when appropriate. “On the contrary, trial judges retain wide 

latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on 

such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, 

prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or 

only marginally relevant.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679.

To begin with, we are skeptical that Frazier can show a Confrontation Clause 

violation at all, especially given the high standard imposed by AEDPA. Such a violation 

occurs only where “a reasonable jury might have received a significantly different 

impression of [the witness’] credibility.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 680. Here, however, 

 

“resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in 

light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). 

No one, however, contends that that provision is implicated in this case.

Case: 19-1514 Document: 48 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/21/2020
6

defense counsel was permitted to ask the driver whether he had charges pending against 

him and whether he expected favorable treatment in exchange for his testimony. What 

latitude the trial court may have given the defense to explore bias along that line is not 

clear, as defense counsel was only prevented from trying to impeach the driver by 

introducing evidence of the scheduling of the driver’s trial. Under those circumstances, it 

is doubtful that the jury would have “received a significantly different impression” of the 

driver’s testimony had counsel been permitted to cross-examine him about the timing of 

his pending cases. Id.

But even if there were constitutional error, it was unquestionably harmless. Van 

Arsdall instructs that the following factors bear upon harmlessness: “the importance of 

the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, 

the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the 

witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of 

course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” 475 U.S. at 684. In this case, 

while the driver was an important witness who provided non-cumulative testimony, the 

other factors cut strongly the other way. Frazier was permitted to cross-examine the 

driver to some extent about his bias, including about whether he had pending cases and 

whether he expected any benefits in exchange for testifying. Equally important, the 

driver’s testimony was corroborated by significant incriminating evidence, including 

phone records showing that the passenger called Frazier just before the shooting, the 

testimony from the mother of Frazier’s friend that Frazier was in the area at the time of 

the shooting, and Frazier’s fingerprints that were found on both weapons and ammunition 

Case: 19-1514 Document: 48 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/21/2020
7

of the type found at the scene. In light of this other evidence, the “overall strength of the 

prosecution’s case” was substantial. Id. In sum, we conclude that Frazier cannot 

establish the requisite prejudice, so, even if there were constitutional error, it was 

harmless.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s decision.

Case: 19-1514 Document: 48 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/21/2020