WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Villarreal v. Texas, a case in which the Supreme Court is considering whether a defendant’s constitutional right to assistance of counsel is violated by a court order prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during a 24-hour recess at a critical stage of his trial, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Ana Builes issued the following reaction:

Breaking from English common law, the Framers guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment that criminal defendants would have the right to the assistance of counsel, establishing its role as a critical safeguard of life and liberty.

The Sixth Amendment’s role is especially important when a defendant wants to confer with his counsel during a critical stage of a trial. As Justice Sotomayor explained during oral argument, the Supreme Court has been “very clear that there is an independent right to the assistance of counsel,” and a trial court order that prohibits a criminal defendant from conferring with his counsel about his testimony for any reason during an overnight recess—as the trial court did here—is an “extreme position.”

As we explained in our brief, that extreme position cannot be squared with the text and history of the Sixth Amendment; it fundamentally misunderstands the Supreme Court’s precedent; and it undermines the Sixth Amendment’s ability to fulfill its fundamental role as a safeguard of liberty.

By prohibiting Mr. Villarreal from consulting with his counsel about important aspects of his case at a critical stage of his trial, the Texas trial court denied him his counsel’s assistance when he needed it the most and denied him the fair trial that the Sixth Amendment guarantees.