Frazier v. Langlois, 7196.

Decision Date20 March 1969
Docket NumberNo. 7196.,7196.
Citation412 F.2d 766
PartiesCarl W. FRAZIER, Petitioner, Appellant v. Harold V. LANGLOIS, Warden of Adult Correctional Institution, Respondent, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Milton Stanzler, Providence, R. I., by appointment of the Court, for appellant.

Donald P. Ryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom Herbert F. DeSimone, Atty. Gen., was on brief, for appellee.

Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, a Rhode Island prisoner serving two sentences for twenty and twenty-two years, sought federal habeas corpus to gain release from both. The district court denied the petition on the ground that petitioner had not exhausted his state court remedies. We affirm.

As to the proceedings leading to the twenty year sentence, habeas is sought because of the alleged denial of the right of confrontation with an absent witness — an informer — whose statements were allegedly admitted into evidence. But the issue presented to the state court in a prior proceeding was that the confrontation clause was violated in failing to call as a witness (or explain her absence) an informer who had been instrumental in setting up a sale of narcotics which sale was used in evidence. There was no allegation that any statements attributed to the informer were used in evidence, i. e., that the informer could in any way be regarded as a witness whom the petitioner had the right to confront. The district court acted properly in holding that the issue before it had never been put to the Rhode Island courts. Needel v. Scafati, 412 F.2d 761 (1st Cir., filed this day).

As to the proceedings leading to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Leavitt v. Howard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • October 8, 1971
    ...from seeing him over an eight-hour period was not put to the Rhode Island courts in the same light as presented here. Frazier v. Langlois, 412 F. 2d 766 (1st Cir. 1969). The exhaustion of State remedies doctrine is a matter of comity and though the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 exhaustion limitation is ......
  • Ouimette v. Moran
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • January 29, 1991
    ...same claims as those presented to the state courts. John Ouimette v. John Moran, (Memorandum and Order May 26, 1989); Frazier v. Langlois, 412 F.2d 766 (1st Cir.1969); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971); 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(b) (1982). Thus, the petitioner......
  • Domaingue v. Butterworth, 80-1415
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • February 12, 1981
    ...Hall, 487 F.Supp. 1193, 1198-99 (D.Mass.1980); Ford v. Flaherty, 364 Mass. 382, 387, 305 N.E.2d 112, 116 (1973). Cf. Frazier v. Langlois, 412 F.2d 766, 767 (1st Cir. 1969) (motion to reargue appeal in state supreme court was an inadequate vehicle, under Rhode Island law, to raise new issues......
  • Needel v. Scafati
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • October 13, 1969
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT