## Facts

- Martin Rene Frazier was convicted in Oregon state court of second-degree murder and sentenced to a term not to exceed twenty-five years.
- Frazier and his cousin, Rawls, were jointly indicted for the murder of Marleau.
- Rawls gave oral and written confessions to authorities that implicated Frazier, then pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and had not yet been sentenced when Frazier was tried.
- In opening statement, the prosecutor described in detail the evidence the state expected to present and told the jury what Rawls was expected to testify to regarding the crime, without stating that Rawls had confessed.
- Frazier moved for a mistrial after the opening statement, arguing the prosecutor effectively placed Rawls’s implicating statements before the jury without ensuring Rawls would testify; the trial court denied the motion.
- When called as a witness, Rawls invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions about the crime; the court dismissed Rawls as a witness.
- Frazier renewed the mistrial motion based on Rawls’s refusal to testify; the trial court again denied it.
- Rawls’s confession was not introduced into evidence, and the trial proceeded without further reference to Rawls or his confession.
- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the conviction; Frazier later obtained federal habeas relief in district court, and the warden appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a prosecutor’s detailed opening statement describing expected testimony from a codefendant who later invokes the Fifth Amendment and does not testify violates the defendant’s Confrontation Clause and due process rights by effectively presenting the codefendant’s incriminating statements without cross-examination.
2. Whether the identified trial events, viewed in context, rendered the state trial fundamentally unfair so as to justify federal habeas relief.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of habeas corpus.
- The court held that the prosecutor’s opening statement did not amount to the admission of Rawls’s out-of-court statements or confession as evidence against Frazier.
- The court found no Confrontation Clause violation because no confession was introduced and the jury was instructed that counsel’s statements were not evidence.
- The court held that the events did not deprive Frazier of due process or a fundamentally fair trial sufficient to warrant habeas relief.

## Legal Principles

- An opening statement is not evidence; it is an outline of what counsel expects to prove, and juries may be instructed to treat it accordingly.
- The Confrontation Clause is not violated where a codefendant’s confession or prior statements are not introduced as evidence and are not treated as proof at trial.
- Federal habeas relief requires a constitutional violation that renders the trial fundamentally unfair; disagreement with trial management decisions, without such unfairness, is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the prosecutor’s opening description of anticipated codefendant testimony, followed by the codefendant’s refusal to testify, did not itself place the codefendant’s confession into evidence and did not deny confrontation or due process; the habeas grant was therefore reversed and the state conviction left undisturbed.


Gladden v. Frazier, 388 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1968)