Judge could limit mid-testimony consult with counsel, SCOTUS rules | Massachusetts ...

Pat Murphy//February 27, 2026//

A state court judge did not violate a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by limiting the scope of discussions he could have with his lawyers during a mid-testimony, overnight recess in his trial for murder, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

The case involved David Asa Villarreal’s 2018 conviction in Texas. The defendant’s testimony at the end of trial was interrupted by the judge calling a 24-hour recess. In calling for a recess, the judge instructed Villarreal’s attorneys not to “manage his testimony.”

However, the judge further clarified the defendant was not prohibited from talking to his attorneys, recognizing Villarreal’s constitutional right to confer about certain subjects, such as potential issues regarding sentencing.

The defendant completed his testimony the next day and the jury found him guilty.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, rejecting the defendant’s contention that the trial judge’s conferral order violated his Sixth Amendment rights. To the contrary, the appeals court concluded the conferral order was a permissible exercise of the trial court’s discretion because it “only restricted discussions of [Villarreal’s] ongoing testimony and nothing else.”

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to “clarify the Sixth Amendment’s boundaries.”

Click here to read the full text of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Feb. 25 decision in Villarreal v. Texas.

BULLET POINTS: “The conferral order here prevented only one thing during the overnight recess that bifurcated Villarreal’s testimony: Villarreal’s lawyers could not manage his ongoing testimony in light of the testimony he had already given. Such management amounts to discussion of testimony qua testimony and therefore falls on the unprotected side of the line we discern from our precedents. Accordingly, the conferral order did not ban or impermissibly chill constitutionally protected consultation.”

— Ketanji Brown Jackson, opinion of the court

“I agree that the trial court did not violate petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel by restricting consultation with his attorney during an overnight midtestimonial recess. I write to set out the framework under which courts should analyze limitations on communications between a criminal defendant and his attorney during a break in the defendant’s testimony….

“At bottom, a defendant and his counsel may not engage in midtestimonial discussions that affect the truth-seeking function of trial by improving or shaping the defendant’s ongoing testimony. I join the majority opinion with the understanding that it draws this line.”

— Justice Samuel L. Alito, concurring** **

“The trial judge’s order did not violate Villarreal’s right to counsel under our precedents. In Geders v. United States, 425 U. S. 80 (1976), this Court held that a trial judge cannot bar a testifying defendant from conferring with counsel overnight because of his interest in discussing matters ‘other than his own testimony.’ In Perry v. Leeke, 488 U. S. 272 (1989), this Court held that a trial judge can bar a testifying defendant from conferring with counsel during a 15-minute recess. Whatever right a defendant has to discuss other matters, the Court held, he has no ‘right to discuss [his] testimony while it is in process.’ The trial judge’s order prohibiting discussion of Villarreal’s ongoing testimony plainly complied with both precedents.

“I cannot join the Court’s opinion because it opines on hypothetical situations not before the Court and needlessly expands our precedents.”

— Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, concurring in judgment