The U.S. Supreme Court on April 7 agreed to consider whether a prisoner’s murder conviction should be set aside because he was prevented from discussing his testimony with his lawyer during an overnight recess.

The court’s decision to approve the petition in Villarreal v. Texas took the form of an unsigned order. The court did not explain why it granted the petition. No justices dissented from the order.

The petitioner, David Asa Villarreal, was sentenced to 60 years in prison in 2018 after he was convicted in the killing of Aaron Estrada, his boyfriend.

The legal issue is whether the trial court violated Villarreal’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by “prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess,” according to the petition filed on Nov. 13, 2024.

A judge imposing conditions on a defendant consulting with his attorney is referred to in the state’s brief as a “qualified conferral order.”

In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Geders v. United States that a trial court violates a defendant’s right to counsel by preventing the defendant from speaking with his attorney during an overnight recess occurring midway through the defendant’s testimony, the petition said.

“The question in this case is whether the outcome is any different where the trial court’s order bars the defendant from conferring with counsel about defendant’s testimony but allows the defendant to confer with counsel about other matters.”

At trial, Villarreal gave evidence that he used a knife to stab Estrada. The medical examiner said that the victim died as a result of stabbing, which meant that “the offense was established beyond a reasonable doubt,” the state said in a brief filed on Feb. 25.

The petitioner said he was defending himself because Estrada “grabbed” and “started choking” him, even though that claim conflicted with other evidence, the brief said.

According to the petition, Villarreal’s testimony began just before noon one day during the guilt-determination phase of the trial. The court declared a recess and let the jury go for the day because the court had to attend to other business.

“The court instructed Villarreal and his attorneys that during the ensuing 24-hour recess, they should pretend that Villarreal was still on the witness stand and should not discuss any topics that would be off-limits in that context, particularly Villarreal’s testimony.”

Villarreal continued testifying about 24 hours later, was convicted of murder, and was given a 60-year term in prison in June 2018. A divided Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed in December 2019, the petition said.

In its opinion, the Texas appeals court discussed the Geders precedent, as well as another Supreme Court ruling, Perry v. Leeke (1989), in which the high court determined that a trial court does not infringe a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights by forbidding him from conferring with his attorney during a 15-minute recess that took place between his direct examination and cross-examination.

The Court of Appeals said in Villarreal’s case, the trial court attempted “to thread the needle” between Geder and Perry by letting Villarreal consult with his lawyer during the overnight recess, but not regarding “any matters that they would not be allowed to discuss while Villarreal was still on the stand,” the petition said.

The Court of Appeals stated that in the years following the Perry ruling, the Supreme Court had “not squarely addressed the precise question here—i.e., whether the trial court abuses its discretion by permitting the defendant to consult his counsel during an overnight recess about any topic except his ongoing testimony,” the petition said.

Courts in several states and federal courts of appeals disagree on the issue, the appeals court said. A divided Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed that ruling in October 2024, according to the petition.

In the state’s brief, Texas urged the Supreme Court not to take up the appeal because throughout the trial “petitioner had access to counsel, including during the overnight access at issue here.”

A judge imposing conditions on a defendant’s access to his attorney during recesses is consistent with the Sixth Amendment and happens “so rarely” that there is no reason for the Supreme Court to weigh in, the brief said.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in its new term that begins in the fall.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared April 9, 2025, in The Epoch Times.