FRAZIER v. CUPP, (1969)
During the interrogation, police falsely informed Frazier that Rawls had already confessed and implicated him in the murder Frazier denied any involvement in the crime, and suggested speaking with an attorney, but police continued to question him. Police elicited a confession, which was used against him at trial.
The defense argued Frazier was denied his Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine the prosecution's witness because Rawls refused to answer questions after the prosecution referenced elements from his prior statements to police.
The defense claimed, under Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. Arizona, that he had not been given his lawyer. He was interrogated further and later confessed. They argued that the confession