The Supreme Court (Finally) Posts The October and November Calendars

After an unusually long delay, the Court has posted the calendars for October and November. The Voting Rights Act case has been consolidated for a single hour on October 15.

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don't know if it's related, but they "tweaked the format of (and perhaps upgraded) the docket pages for individual cases."

Maybe that factored into the delay of posting the calendar.

https://substack.com/inbox/post/170567457

[MaddogEngineer]

Being later than recent historical practice does not make it an unusually long delay. There is no right date here.

[Brett Bellmore]

"24-557 VILLARREAL V. TEXAS
DECISION BELOW: 707 S.W.3d 138
CERT. GRANTED 4/7/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether a trial court abridges the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess."

How is this even a question? I mean that sincerely, I'm just flabbergasted that anybody would think that an open question.

[apedad]

(from oyez)

David Asa Villarreal was charged with murder in Bexar County, Texas. During his trial, Villarreal took the stand in his own defense shortly before a planned midday recess. Because Villarreal was still in the middle of his direct examination when the court adjourned for an overnight recess, the trial judge instructed his attorneys not to confer with him regarding his ongoing testimony but permitted them to discuss other trial-related matters. Villarreal’s lead counsel objected to this limitation under the Sixth Amendment but otherwise indicated understanding of the court's directive. The next day, Villarreal resumed his testimony, and no further objections about the limitation were raised. Villarreal was ultimately convicted and sentenced to sixty years in prison.

Following his conviction, Villarreal appealed, arguing that the trial court’s restriction violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. A divided appeals court affirmed his conviction, and Villarreal petitioned for discretionary review, and the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas held that the trial judge’s limited no-conferral order did not violate Villarreal’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/24-557

[apedad]

From the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas' decision:

"Our sister state supreme courts have generally agreed that such a situation does not violate the right to counsel. Yet, federal circuits have reached the opposite conclusion. We side with our sister states and hold that Appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated under these facts."

https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2024/pd-0048-20-1.html

So we'll see.

[Area Man]

If you look at the filings, one thing the question presented doesn't make clear is that it is an overnight recess *in the middle of the defendant's testimony.* Legally speaking, there's typically a difference between mid-testimony breaks and other types of breaks. Maybe it won't be enough of a difference to overcome full consultation with counsel, but there is at least an argument to be made.

[David Nieporent]

How is this even a question? I mean that sincerely, I'm just flabbergasted that anybody would think that an open question.

Anybody would think it's an open question because it is, in fact, an open question. I know you think that every provision of the constitution is obvious in meaning and application in all circumstances, such that there can't be any unsettled areas of law, but that premise is mistaken.

Generally speaking, while someone is testifying he or she cannot consult with a lawyer. (There maybe be an exception if there's an issue of privilege, but otherwise, no.) We don't want lawyers coaching witnesses. A break for lunch or even overnight does not obviate that concern.

[David Nieporent]

The Supreme Court (Finally) Posts The October and November Calendars

Our long national nightmare is over.

[TheAmazingEmu]

Some Constitutional criminal law ones of note:

Oct. 6 - Villarreal v. Texas - Sixth Amendment question: Can defense counsel be prohibited from conferring with client about testimony if the court breaks mid-testimony.

Oct. 7 - Barrett v. US - Double Jeopardy question re: two federal statutes

Oct. 14 - Ellingburg v. United States - Does a restitution statute implicate the Ex Post Facto clause

Oct. 15 - Case v. Montana - Does the Emergency Aid exception to the Fourth Amendment require Probable Cause

Nov. 3 - Rico v. US - Not Constitutional, but it's about the Fugitive Tolling Doctrine for people on supervised release.

Nov. 4 - Hamm v. Smith - Atkins case concerning the application of multiple IQ tests