Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Criminal Procedure
Criminal ProcedureSixth AmendmentRight to CounselSixth Amendmentassistance of counselovernight recessdefendant testimonysequestration
Facts
During petitioner's federal criminal trial, he testified in his own defense, and his direct examination ended at 4:55 p.m. before cross-examination began. At the overnight recess, the trial judge, following a general practice of instructing interrupted witnesses not to discuss their testimony, ordered petitioner not to consult his attorney about anything until the next morning. Defense counsel objected that he needed to discuss trial-related matters other than the impending cross-examination, but complied with the order. Petitioner was allowed to consult counsel during the next day's luncheon recess after cross-examination had finished, and he was later convicted.
Issue
Whether a trial court's order preventing a criminal defendant from consulting his attorney about anything during a 17-hour overnight recess between direct examination and cross-examination deprives the defendant of the assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Rule
An order preventing a criminal defendant from consulting counsel about anything during a long overnight recess between direct and cross-examination impinges upon the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. When the defendant's right to consult counsel during such a recess conflicts with the prosecution's desire to avoid possible coaching, the conflict must be resolved in favor of the right to counsel.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a federal drug trial in Phoenix, defendant Marcus Velez testified in his own defense. At 5:10 p.m., after direct examination ended, the judge recessed until the next morning and ordered Marcus not to speak with his lawyer about anything until cross-examination was finished, explaining that the court wanted to prevent coaching.
If Marcus is convicted and appeals, how should the appellate court rule on this claim?
Explanation. The majority held that a trial court may not prevent a criminal defendant from consulting counsel about anything during a long overnight recess between direct and cross-examination. Although judges have broad authority to manage trials and sequester witnesses, a defendant is differently situated from an ordinary witness and ordinarily needs counsel during overnight recesses to discuss strategy, the day's events, and information relevant to the defense. The defendant need not show specific prejudice.