- within Technology, Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences and Cannabis & Hemp topic(s)
On October 6, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Villarreal v. Texas (No. 24-557) to consider a constitutional question that could significantly affect criminal defendants' Sixth Amendment protections. The Justices are poised to decide whether a trial court violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant from discussing his or her own testimony with counsel during an overnight trial recess before being dismissed as a witness.
The petitioner, David Villarreal, stood trial for murder and testified on his own behalf. Shortly after he began his testimony, the trial court declared a 24-hour recess mid-examination. The court instructed Villarreal and his counsel that, although they were allowed to discuss other aspects of the case, they could not speak specifically about Villarreal's testimony. Villarreal was ultimately convicted and sentenced to 60 years in prison, and appealed on the grounds that he had been denied meaningful access to counsel. The intermediate appellate court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals each upheld the conviction, deciding that the restrictions on Villarreal's communications with counsel did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
Villarreal's arguments emphasize the difficulty of distinguishing between discussions about testimony and those about trial strategy, emphasizing that the two are linked and that creating such an artificial divide risks chilling criminal defendants' Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Relying on Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 (1976), where the Court held that a defendant has the right to confer with counsel during an overnight recess, Villarreal urges the Court to apply Geders to circumstances where the recess occurs during the defendant's ongoing testimony.
The State counters that allowing testifying defendants to confer with counsel during overnight trial recesses creates unequal advantages between defendants based on the recess length, and that Geders does not apply because the trial court's restriction here was limited to the subject matter of testimony rather than an absolute ban on communication. The State further maintains that historically, the Sixth Amendment has permitted reasonable trial-management restrictions designed to preserve the integrity of testimony and prevent attorney coaching.
During oral argument, the Justices' questions reflected a common concern with how to balance a defendant's right to counsel against a trial court's authority to manage proceedings. Several Justices focused on identifying a clear standard that differentiates permissible trial-management rules from those that unduly restrict attorney-client communication. Others examined whether Geders applies when a trial recess occurs during the defendant's mid-testimony rather than between trial days. Justice Thomas questioned why the standard should differ between restrictions on conversations during trial and those imposed during recesses. Justice Sotomayor expressed concern about the difficulty of drawing lines between permissible and impermissible topics of discussion. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett inquired where the constitutional line might lie between pauses and extended recesses, as discussions of testimony are typically barred during the former. Justice Jackson explored whether allowing consultation during overnight recesses would necessarily imply a right to confer during shorter breaks as well.
Taken together, the oral-argument exchanges highlighted the Court's effort to clarify the scope of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel during a represented defendant's ongoing testimony and the degree of discretion trial judges retain to regulate communication during recesses.
The Court's decision is expected later this term. Stay tuned for Dykema's decision alert discussing the Court's forthcoming opinion.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.