Supreme Court Backs Restrictions on Lawyer-Defendant Trial Talks

Judges can bar criminal defendants from speaking with their lawyers about their testimony during an overnight recess without violating their right to counsel, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously.

The opinion authored Wednesday by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said when a defendant chooses to take the stand as a witness their “status shifts,” and so does the balancing of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

“He does not shed his rights as a criminal defendant,” Jackson wrote. “But he does assume some of the burdens of a testifying witness.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined the judgment, but not the majority opinion, saying it “needlessly expands out precedents.”

The case stemmed from the criminal prosecution in Texas of David Villarreal, who was convicted by a jury of murdering his boyfriend and sentenced to 60 years in prison.

Villarreal claimed self-defense and chose to testify during trial. But the judge called an overnight recess during his testimony because of a pre-planned meeting he had to attend.

The judge issued a “qualified conferral order” barring defense counsel from speaking with their client about any testimony, while allowing them to discuss other broader matters. Villarreal claimed the instruction infringed on his right to counsel and ultimately affected the outcome of the case.

He unsuccessfully appealed to a Texas intermediate court of appeals, whose rejection was affirmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

The justices, via their ruling, maintained a balance between a criminal defendants’ right to counsel with the court’s interest in preventing witness-coaching during trial.

In 1976, the court found a judge’s order preventing attorneys and the accused from speaking during a 17-hour break violated the constitutional right to counsel. But the court then said in 1989 that a judge was justified in barring a defendant from speaking with their lawyer or anyone else during a 15-minute break in testimony.

The case is David Villarreal v. Texas, U.S., 24-557, decided on 2/25/26.