Document: 394 U.S. 731 89 S.Ct. 1420 22 L.Ed.2d 684 Martin Rene FRAZIER, Petitioner,v.H. C. CUPP, Warden. No. 643. Argued Feb. 26, 1969. Decided April 22, Howard M. Feuerstein, Portland, Or., for petitioner. Arlen Specter, Philadelphia, Pa., respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner was convicted in an Oregon state court second-degree murder connection with September 1964, slaying one Russell Anton Marleau. After Supreme Court had affirmed his conviction, 245 Or. 4, 418 P.2d 841 (1966), petitioner filed a petition writ habeas corpus United States District Oregon. The granted writ, but Appeals Ninth Circuit reversed, 388 F.2d 777 (1968). We certiorari to consider three contentions error raised by 393 821, 222, 21 93 Although petitioner's case has been ably briefed and argued appointed counsel, we find none these allegations sufficient warrant reversal. I. 2 Petitioner's first argument centers on certain allegedly prejudicial remarks made during prosecutor's opening statement. indicted jointly cousin, Jerry Lee Rawls, who pleaded guilty same offense. Prior trial, defense counsel told prosecutor that Rawls would invoke privilege against self-incrimination if he were called stand; warned not rely statement upon Rawls' expected testimon . replied act basis 'all information I have concerning (Rawls') testimony.' Before consulted police officer spoken probation officer; each indicated belief testify. Similar came, through sheriff's report, from some close relatives. Because reports, concluded testify asked do so. below felt also relied fact awaiting sentence. This give him reason, felt, cooperate prosecutor. 3 In any case, after trial began included summary testimony receive Rawls. emphasized particular way; it took only few minutes recite sandwiched between own confession description circumstantial evidence State introduce. At point referred paper holding hands refresh memory about something said. admitted here jury might fairly believed referring statement, did explicitly tell this confession, nor purport read directly it. A motion mistrial at denied. Later, stand. informed intended assert regard every question activities morning 1964. matter further pursued, dismissed His appearance could lasted more than two or minutes. renewed once again 4 argues series events placed substance before way 'may well equivalent jury's mind testimony,' Douglas v. Alabama, 380 415, 419, 85 1074, 1077, 13 934 (1965), that, as Bruton States, 391 123, 128, 88 1620, 1623, 20 476 (1968), 'added substantial, perhaps even critical, weight Government's form subject cross-examination * *.' way, claims denied constitutional right confrontation, guaranteed Sixth Fourteenth Amendments Constitution. See Pointer Texas, 400, 1065, 923 (1965). judge caution jurors they 'must your presence proceedings facts evidence,' contends supra, disposes contention limiting instructions sort can be cure which occurred. thus posed is easy one, cannot agree conclusion. 5 First all, clear quite different either Bruton. Douglas, defendant's coconspirator stand alleged him; required repeatedly confirm deny found procedure powerfully incriminating manner effectively cross-examination. Here, very short time paraphrase jury. done while person making stand, addition, should considered evidence. Certainly impact used much less damaging Douglas. And unlike situation Bruton, being perform mental gymnastics considering defendants joint trial. Moreover, vitally important part prosecution's case. 6 believe circumstances given protect rights.* As said 135, 1627, 'Not admission inadmissible hearsay other reversible unavoidable instructions; instances occur almost where creeps in, usually inadvertently.' Hopt Utah, 120 430, 438, 7 614, 30 L.Ed. 708 (1887). It may closing so finding error, unavoidable. But no objective reasonably produce. Many things happen course prevent presentation all described advance. variance advance actual constitutes when proper instruction given. Even unreasonable assume disregard coconspirator's introduced defendants, does seem remarkable will ordinarily able limit its consideration least anticipated, unproduced, touted crucial 'it hard us imagine minds influenced such incidental statements long appraise objectively dispassionately.' Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 150, 239, 60 811, 852, 84 1129 (1940). seemed feel aspect turned whether acted 'in good faith expectation testify.' F.2d, 780—781. While faith, lack it, controlling determining defendant deprived confrontation Amendments, Appeals' factual determination presented record support Court's conclusion 'the expect (Rewls) line previous statements.' 9, 843. Accordingly, there need decide type prosecutorial misconduct occurred constitute error. Cf. Miller Pate, 386 1, 87 785, 17 690 (1967). Therefore, because neither deprivation nothing federal relief. II. 8 second concerns into confession. under obtained summarized briefly. arrested 4:15 p.m. 24, He taken headquarters questioning interrogation, tape-recorded, ended slightly hour later, 6:45 signed written version 9 begun routine ascertained, questioned briefly location Marine uniform. next night question. cousin third person. Then somewhat abbreviated rights. attorney wanted anything Questioning thereafter became vigorous, continued anyone point, him, falsely, brought confessed. still reluctant talk, sympathetically suggested victim started fight homosexual advances, spill out story. Shortly showed signs reluctance said, 'I think better get lawyer talk more. am going trouble now.' simply, 'You can't you are now,' session proceeded. full and, warnings, signed. 10 Since tried decision Escobedo Illinois, 378 478, 1758, 12 977 (1964), Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694, A.L.R.3d 974 rule former applicable. Johnson New Jersey, 719, 1772, 882 (1966). getting bring play immediately stopped him. applicable held '(i)f (a suspect) indicates stage process wishes consult speaking questioning.' 444—445, 1612. apply Jersey pointedly rejected specific commands post-Escobedo cases. recognized '(t)he disagreements among courts implications Escobedo,' 734, 1781, although free cases, id., 733, Court, affirming properly Under Johnson, disagree compelled Escobedo. 11 covers seeing unambiguous request made. unmistakably their suspect's wishes; Escobedo's present requested permission see client. hand, possible remark interrogation cease merely passing comment. pursue matter, answering questions. context, denial presses alternative involuntary excluded reason. judge, evidentiary hearing tape recording played, contention, our reading lead contrary statements, received partial warnings rights; is, course, circumstance relevant voluntariness. Davis North Carolina, 737, 740—741, 1761, 895 duration, mature individual normal intelligence. misrepresented relevant, insufficient view make otherwise voluntary inadmissible. These cases must decided viewing 'totality circumstances,' see, e.g., Clewis 707, 708, 1338, 18 423 (1967), III. final rather quickly. erred permitting clothing seized duffel bag left home. police, arresting clothing. They directed both mother consented search. During search, officers came well. user bag, clearly authority consent therefore lawful past decisions, permitted seize Harris 390 234, 992, 19 1067 (1968); Warden, Maryland Penitentiary Hayden, 387 294, 1642, 782 use compartment search compartments. not, however, engage metaphysical subtleties judging efficacy consent. Petitioner, allowing leaving house, assumed risk allow someone else look inside. valid seizure claim 14 meritorious, affirm judgment Appeals. 15 Affirmed. Chief WARREN DOUGLAS concur result. FORTAS desirable, requested.

Category: 0