Villarreal v. Texas · ¶86
The majority opinion finds no support in Perry. As for a general right to discuss testimony, this Court in Perry explained in straightforward terms that “we do not believe the defendant has a constitutional right to discuss [his] testimony while it is in process.” 488 U. S., at 284; cf. ante, at 477–479. Perry therefore endorsed orders that categorically “forbid discussion of ongoing testimony.” 488 U. S., at 284, n. 8. That endorsement came in the context of a brief recess. Id., at 284. But, unlike the majority opinion in this case, see ante at 477, 479, Perry never stated that those sorts of categorical orders are forbidden overnight. As for the potential confict between the possibility for conferral and uncompromised testimony, see ante, at 478, Perry clarifed that the Court would not read Geders to demand resolving them in favor of conferral in all cases. “[W]hen [a defendant]…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.