Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Following what the Supreme Court is actually doing can be daunting. Reporting on the subject is often only done within the context of political narratives of the day -- and following the Court's decisions and reading every new case can be a non-starter. The purpose of this Podcast is to make it as easy as possible for members of the public to source information about what is happening at the Supreme Court. For that reason, we read every Opinion Syllabus without any commentary whatsoever. Further, there are no advertisements or sponsors. We call it "information sourcing," and we hope that the podcast is a useful resource for members of the public who want to understand the legal issues of the day, prospective law students who want to get to know legal language and understand good legal writing, and attorneys who can use the podcast to be better advocates for their clients.
*Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.
Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Villareal v. Texas (Sixth Amendment right to counsel)
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
In a decision affirming the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the Supreme Court held that a trial court may, during an overnight recess that interrupts a defendant’s testimony, prohibit counsel from “managing” or shaping the defendant’s ongoing testimony without violating the Sixth Amendment. Drawing on Geders v. United States and Perry v. Leeke, the Court rejected the defendant’s argument that any restriction during an overnight recess is unconstitutional, explaining that once a defendant takes the stand, he retains his right to counsel but also assumes the burdens of a witness, including limits designed to protect the trial’s truth-seeking function. The Court clarified that the constitutional line is content-based, not purely temporal: while a defendant may consult with counsel about trial strategy, plea negotiations, evidentiary issues, or other matters beyond the substance of his testimony, he has no protected right to discuss “testimony for its own sake” in a way that could shape or adjust it midstream.
