The question
Whether a trial court order that, during a midtestimony overnight recess, prohibits a testifying defendant from conferring with counsel about his ongoing testimony for its own sake violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Villarreal v. Texas
What the Court decided
The Court affirmed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. A qualified conferral order that bars only discussion of the defendant's testimony for its own sake during a midtestimony overnight recess does not violate the Constitution. The order still permits consultation about protected topics such as trial strategy, plea decisions, and factual information for tactical choices, so it permissibly balances the Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the interest in unaltered trial testimony.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Jackson, joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett
When a defendant testifies he assumes some burdens of a witness, including the inability to receive advice aimed at influencing testimony in light of testimony already given. The line between Geders and Perry is substantive, not temporal: a defendant has a right to consult about nontestimony topics like trial tactics and plea bargaining, but consultation about the testimony itself sheds constitutional protection. A rule barring discussion of testimony for its own sake mimics witness sequestration and advances the trial's truth-seeking function, and the order here permissibly allowed discussion of protected topics while prohibiting management of ongoing testimony.
Concurring
Alito, writing alone
Alito filed a separate concurring opinion joining the Court's judgment and reasoning. The syllabus does not state the grounds of the separate concurrence.
Concurring in the judgment
Thomas, joined by Gorsuch
Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, agreeing that the order should be upheld but not joining the Court's reasoning. The syllabus does not state the grounds of the separate opinion.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
A qualified conferral order barring only discussion of the defendant's testimony for its own sake during a midtestimony overnight recess does not violate the Constitution.
Source: syllabus, Held
A testifying defendant retains a Sixth Amendment right to consult counsel about nontestimony topics such as trial tactics, availability of other witnesses, and plea bargaining, but not about the ongoing testimony itself.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court affirmed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision reported at 707 S. W. 3d 138.
Source: syllabus, Held
Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Gorsuch joined, and Alito filed a concurring opinion.
Source: syllabus, lineup