Justices OK attorney-client limits for midtestimony overnight recess 

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a trial court did not violate a Texas man’s constitutional rights by limiting conversations with his lawyer during an overnight recess in the middle of his testimony. 

Criminal defendants have a right to legal counsel under the Sixth Amendment, but the high court said those protections are limited when the defendant assumes some of the burdens of a testifying witness. 

Under two prior rulings, the justices determined that while criminal defendants are testifying, courts could block all attorney-client communications during a short daytime recess but not during an overnight recess. 

While David Asa Villarreal was on trial for murdering his roommate, a judge instructed him and his defense counsel to not discuss his testimony during an overnight recess, specifying the prohibition applied to anything they could not discuss if he was on the stand in front of the jury.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the judge’s conferral order falls on the constitutional side of the line. 

“A rule prohibiting the discussion of testimony for its own sake mimics sequestration within constitutional bounds,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, wrote for the court. “It restrains real-time feedback aimed at chameleonic adjustments in the defendant’s testimony and thus (like true sequestration) advances ‘the central function of the trial, which is to discover the truth.’”

Villarreal said the qualified conferral order violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. When the justices heard his appeal last October, he said drawing lines around attorney-client communications was unworkable. 

“It’s often impossible to discuss trial strategy without discussing testimony, and responsible defense lawyers, worried about being held in contempt for crossing this invisible line, will be chilled from offering the assistance that the defendant needs and that the Sixth Amendment guarantees,” said Stuart Banner, an attorney with the UCLA School of Law Supreme Court Clinic representing Villarreal.

Texas relied on the court’s precedents in Geders v. United States, nixing a ban on all attorney-client communications overnight, and Perry v. Leeke, upholding such limits during short recesses, to propose a middle-ground solution. 

The Lone Star State said that attorneys should not be able to “manage” witness testimony during an overnight recess. The state said this involved coaching, regrouping and strategizing about the testimony itself, but attorneys and witnesses could still discuss the other aspects of the case that might be part of the testimony.

“It’s an empirical predicate of our system of justice that an uncounseled witness is more likely to tell the truth than one who has time to pause and consult with their attorney,” said Andrew Warthen, an assistant criminal district attorney in Bexar County, Texas.

While noting the judge’s order in Villarreal’s case was “not a model of clarity,” Jackson said it was tailored enough to delineate forbidden consultation. Jackson said the court’s rule still allowed defendants and lawyers to discuss trial strategy — such as accepting a plea deal — during a midtestimony overnight recess. 

“The Sixth Amendment does not abide a take-my-word-for-it vision of the attorney-client relationship,” Jackson wrote. “It does, however, tolerate a midtestimony conferral order prohibiting discussion of testimony as such, lest that discussion shape future testimony ‘in light of the testimony already given.’”

Justice Clarence Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, took issue with Jackson’s newly announced rule. 

“I cannot join the court’s opinion because it opines on hypothetical situations not before the court and needlessly expands our precedents,” Thomas wrote, concurring only in judgment. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Donald Trump appointee, joined Thomas’ opinion. 

Thomas claimed that Jackson’s opinion “endorses a methodology under which any conflict between the Sixth Amendment and the desire for untutored testimony must be resolved in favor of the right to the assistance and guidance of counsel.” 

Thomas said the majority opinion wasn’t grounded in the original meaning of the Sixth Amendment. And he added that opining on matters not presented in Villarreal’s case wasn't necessary to decide it. 

Jackson’s opinion was joined by every justice except Thomas and Gorsuch. She stated that the majority did not share Thomas’ view that the ruling “needlessly expands our precedents.” 

“It is true that ‘Perry never stated’ the rule we draw from it and Geders,” Jackson wrote. “If it did, there would have been no need to take this case. But for the reasons explained above, today’s result follows neatly from our precedents.” 

The district attorney's office celebrated the decision, calling it a recognition of prosecutors' hard work.

"This decision is not only a reflection of our commitment to justice but also a testament to the tireless work, professionalism and integrity of our prosecutors, both at trial and on appeal in this case," Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales said in a statement. "Their perseverance has ensured that justice prevails for our Bexar County community." 

Follow @KelseyReichmann

Follow @kelseyreichmann.bsky.social