Gladden v. Frazier

In Frazier's (defendant) murder trial, the prosecutor's opening statement described what he expected co-defendant Rawls (who had separately confessed and pleaded guilty) to testify to, based on advance information from a deputy sheriff, Rawls's probation officer, and Rawls's brother that Rawls intended to testify against his attorney's advice, potentially to help his own sentencing; when called to the stand, Rawls instead invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege and never testified, and the prosecutor never referenced Rawls or his anticipated testimony again. Frazier's mistrial motions were denied both after the opening statement and after Rawls's refusal to testify; he was convicted and sought federal habeas relief, which the district court granted, reasoning the opening statement effectively admitted Rawls's prior statements without any chance for cross-examination, and the state appealed.