Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorneylawyerprecedentappealtrialtestimonycross-examination

defendantattorneylawyerappealtrialtestimony

Related Cases

Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 109 S.Ct. 594, 102 L.Ed.2d 624

Facts

Petitioner was convicted in state court of murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault. During his trial, after completing his direct testimony, the trial judge declared a 15-minute recess and ordered that the petitioner not be allowed to talk to anyone, including his lawyer. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the Geders precedent did not apply because it involved an overnight recess, and the trial court's order was not prejudicial.

Issue

Did the state trial court's order preventing the defendant from consulting with his attorney during a 15-minute recess violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel?

Rule

The Federal Constitution does not compel a trial judge to allow a criminal defendant to confer with his attorney during a brief break in his testimony, as long as the trial judge maintains the status quo during such recesses.

The Federal Constitution does not compel a trial judge to allow a criminal defendant to confer with his attorney during a brief break in his testimony.

Analysis

The Court applied the rule by distinguishing between the circumstances of a brief recess and those of a longer one, as in Geders. It noted that the truth-seeking function of the trial is better served when cross-examination occurs without the witness having the opportunity to consult with counsel immediately after direct examination. The Court emphasized that the defendant's right to consult with counsel is not absolute during short recesses.

The Court applied the rule by distinguishing between the circumstances of a brief recess and those of a longer one, as in Geders.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, concluding that the trial court's order did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the state, as the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding no violation of the defendant's rights.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Greenwald v. Eisinger, Brown, Lewis & Frankel, P.A., 118 So.3d 867, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1514

U.S. ex rel. Wilcox v. Johnson, 555 F.2d 115

Torrey v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center, 769 So.2d 1040, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S911

Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734, 6 Fed.R.Serv.2d 831

New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110, 120 S.Ct. 659, 145 L.Ed.2d 560, 68 USLW 4029, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 239, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 307, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 173, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 35