Summary

Thurgood Marshall Frazier v. Cupp — Opinion of the Court

The Court of Appeals seemed to feel that this aspect of the case turned on whether or not the prosecutor acted 'in a good faith expectation that Rawls would testify.' 388 F.2d, at 780-781. While we do not believe that the prosecutor's good faith, or lack of it, is controlling in determining whether a defendant has been deprived of the right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, we agree with the Court of Appeals' factual determination in this case.
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall Frazier v. Cupp — Opinion of the Court

Prior to petitioner's trial, petitioner's defense counsel told the prosecutor that Rawls would invoke his privilege against self-incrimination if he were called to the stand; defense counsel warned the prosecutor not to rely in his opening statement upon Rawls' expected testimon . The prosecutor replied that he would act on the basis of 'all of the information I have concerning (Rawls') testimony.' Before trial, he consulted with a police officer who had spoken to Rawls and with Rawls' probation officer; each indicated his belief that Rawls would testify.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature