## Facts

- Darlene Frappier lived at Fort Devens with her husband, Army Sergeant Robert A. Boissonneault; her sons Warner L. Strout, Jr. and William Hazzard; and former lover Michael Pelkey.
- On June 5, 1983, while hospitalized, Frappier asked Pelkey and then Strout to kill Boissonneault because he would not give her a divorce; both initially refused.
- Frappier left the hospital, returned home, and argued with Boissonneault about his relationship in Korea.
- During an alcohol-fueled evening, Frappier offered Strout $10,000 from expected life-insurance proceeds and help related to a child Strout believed Frappier had borne him, if he killed Boissonneault.
- Frappier provided clothesline rope; Strout strangled Boissonneault, who was found dead on June 6, 1983.
- Strout confessed on June 7, 1983 and later pleaded guilty to second-degree murder under an agreement providing a 25-year sentence with parole eligibility after six years.
- Frappier was indicted and tried nearly two years later after Pelkey provided information implicating her in the murder.
- A federal jury convicted Frappier of procuring premeditated murder under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 2; the district court denied her motion for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 607 permitted the government, on direct examination, to elicit information exposing credibility weaknesses of its own witness to blunt anticipated impeachment by the defense.
2. Whether the government’s questioning was an improper impeachment tactic or a subterfuge to place otherwise inadmissible material before the jury.
3. Whether any of the district court’s evidentiary and trial-management rulings, individually or cumulatively, amounted to reversible error, abuse of discretion, or prejudicial error.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of conviction and affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial.
- The court held that the prosecution could question Strout on direct about matters bearing on his credibility to lessen the impact of cross-examination.
- The court rejected the claim that the prosecution needed a particularized showing that the defense would impeach Strout before employing this technique.
- The court concluded that none of the challenged rulings, alone or together, justified reversal for error, abuse of discretion, or prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 607, any party, including the party calling the witness, may attack the witness’s credibility.
- A party may use direct examination to disclose and explain weaknesses in its own witness’s credibility to reduce the force of anticipated impeachment.
- Improper impeachment concerns arise when a party calls a witness it knows will not provide helpful testimony primarily to introduce a prior inconsistent statement that is otherwise inadmissible as substantive evidence; that concern was not present where the witness’s testimony was substantively necessary and the questioning addressed credibility rather than serving as a hearsay end-run.
- Appellate review of many evidentiary and trial-management rulings is deferential; reversal requires a showing of error and resulting prejudice (or abuse of discretion), including when considering cumulative effect.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Frappier’s conviction for procuring her husband’s murder, ruling that Rule 607 allowed the government to “take the sting out” of impeachment by eliciting credibility weaknesses from its own key witness on direct examination, and finding no reversible error in the district court’s rulings.


United States v. Frappier, 807 F.2d 257 (1st Cir. 1986)