Can a Trial Court Constitutionally Put a Qualified Conferral Order, Prohibiting Any Discussion About the Accused's Past or Future Testimony, on Overnight Recess Consultations Between Counsel and the Accused?

This case will determine what qualified conferral order restrictions, if any, a trial judge can put on consultations between an accused and defense counsel about the accused’s testimony during an overnight recess in the accused’s testimony. The Court will have to examine issues regarding recess consultation restrictions that it has not addressed since its decision 36 years ago in Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272 (1989). Leeke found constitutional a nonconferral order between counsel and accused during a 15-minute pause in the accused’s testimony. However, before then, in Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 (1975), the Court declared such an absolute nonconferral order during a 17-hour overnight recess violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Villarreal will force the Court to try and reconcile these two decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]