Villarreal v. Texas · ¶83

Perry also rejected Villarreal's main counterargument. Villarreal argues that because it is difficult to distinguish discussion of testimony from discussion of other matters, he should have been able to discuss his testimony in order to ensure that he could discuss other topics, too. Brief for Petitioner 24–38. But in Perry, three Justices dissented partly because they, like Villarreal, did not believe that it was “possible to distinguish discussions regarding trial strategy from discussions regarding testimony.” 488 U. S., at 295, n. 8 (opinion of Marshall, J.). The Perry majority made that distinction nonetheless and endorsed orders that turn on that distinction. Id., at 284, n. 8.

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