Villarreal v. Texas · ¶35

In less prominent form, the same content-based premises undergird Geders. The Court there explained that a defendant differs from a normal witness because the defendant has matters “other than his own testimony” to discuss. 425 U. S., at 88 (emphasis added). And Geders's lawyer apparently shared that same assumption, because he insisted that he and his client must be permitted to confer “about matters other than the imminent cross-examination.” Id., at 82 (emphasis added).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.