United States v. Frappier
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
807 F.2d 257 (1986)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Darlene Frappier (defendant) was charged with offering money to her son, Warner Strout, to kill her husband. Strout pled guilty to the murder. At Frappier’s trial, the prosecution (plaintiff) called Strout as a witness. As a way of taking the sting out of the defense’s impending cross-examination of Strout, the prosecution elicited weaknesses in Strout’s testimony that the defense could use to impeach Strout. Frappier was convicted, and she appealed. Frappier argued that the prosecution’s questioning of Strout should not have been allowed because there was no basis for a belief that the defense was going to attack Strout’s credibility.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Coffin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.