Villarreal v. Texas
607 U. S. 465 (2026) · 2/25/26
A trial court’s qualified conferral order that prohibits only discussion of the defendant’s testimony for its own sake during a midtestimony overnight recess permissibly balances the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the burden of offering unaltered trial testimony and does not violate the Constitution.
Edition: preliminary print (page proof)
Voices: Syllabus — prepared by the Reporter of Decisions · Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court. · Justice Alito, concurring. · Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Gorsuch joins, concurring in the judgment.
David Villarreal's murder trial culminated with his own testimony. That testimony was interrupted by a 24-hour overnight recess, during which the trial judge instructed Villarreal's attorneys not to “manage his testimony.” 707 S. W. 3d 138, 142. The judge clarified, however, that Villarreal was not prohibited from talking to his attorneys and recognized Villarreal's constitutional right to confer about certain topics, such as possible sentencing issues. Villarreal resumed his testimony 24 hours later and was subsequently convicted of murder. On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals…
Held: A qualified conferral order that prohibits only discussion of the defendant's testimony for its own sake during a midtestimony overnight recess permissibly balances the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the burden of offering unaltered trial testimony and does not violate the Constitution. Pp. 470–480. (a) The Sixth Amendment guarantees as “fundamental” a criminal defendant's right to consult with counsel. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 68. When a defendant takes the witness stand, however, he “[a]ssum[es] the position of a witness,” with its attendant “criticisms…Read it in the reading room ›