Villarreal v. Texas · ¶47

This argument, which is not without force, has persuaded a number of lower courts. See, e. g., United States v. San tos, 201 F. 3d 953, 965 (CA7 2000) (“Perry makes clear” that a no-discussion-of-testimony order violates the Sixth Amendment because it “would as a practical matter preclude the assistance of counsel across a range of legitimate legal and tactical questions”); United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 487 F. 3d 124, 132–133 (CA2 2007) (similar); United States v. Cobb, 905 F. 2d 784, 792 (CA4 1990) (similar). But, importantly, those courts addressed conferral orders banning any and all discussion of the defendant's testimony, even if incidental to protected topics.

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