U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court will consider scope of Sixth Amendment right to counsel during trial recess
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when a judge banned him from discussing his ongoing testimony when meeting with his lawyers during an overnight trial recess. (Image from Shutterstock)
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when a judge banned him from discussing his ongoing testimony when meeting with his lawyers during an overnight trial recess.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of David Asa Villarreal on April 7, report SCOTUSblog, Law360 and Law.com.
Villarreal was the only defense witness at his trial for fatally stabbing his boyfriend Aaron Estrada, according to prior coverage by SCOTUSblog. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to 60 years in prison.
Two prior Supreme Court decisions have led to a lower-court split on whether defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to talk to their lawyers about their testimony when it is interrupted by an overnight break, according to the cert petition and a brief opposing cert filed by prosecutors in Texas.
In Geders v. United States, a decision in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights are violated when a judge prohibits the defendant from conferring with their lawyer during an overnight break.
In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in Perry v. Leeke that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights are not violated by a ban on consulting with their lawyer during a 15-minute recess between direct and cross-examination.
Six federal appeals courts and three state supreme courts have held that defendants have a right to confer with a lawyer about testimony during an overnight recess, according to the cert petition. The top state supreme courts or criminal courts in four other states—including Texas, in a ruling against Villarreal—have reached the opposite conclusion, according to the cert petition.
The case is Villarreal v. Texas.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
