Opinion ID: 1382576
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Denial of Right to Counsel.

Text: Beckham testified in his own behalf at trial. During Beckham's cross-examination by the Commonwealth, the trial recessed for an overnight break. The next morning, the attorneys and the trial court discussed jury instructions before the cross-examination resumed. As the discussion between the court and counsel ended, Beckham's attorneys asked permission to speak with Beckham regarding jury instructions and other matters. The trial court granted permission for Beckham's attorneys to speak to him but admonished the attorneys not to talk with Beckham about his testimony. Defense counsel objected to the limitation on their right to confer with their client. The trial court responded by stating that it was not trying to limit Beckham's access to counsel but, rather, was just trying to treat Beckham like any other witness. A short time later, the trial resumed; and Beckham was cross-examined further by the Commonwealth. Beckham now contends that the trial court's limitation on his consultation with his attorneys violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We disagree. In separate decisions, the United States Supreme Court has held that a court cannot prevent a criminal defendant from having any consultation with his attorney during an overnight recess [21] but that it is constitutionally permissible for a trial court to bar a testifying defendant from consulting with his attorney during a briefer recess. [22] The Court reconciled those two holdings by noting that an attorney would normally consult with his client about matters other than the client's testimony during an overnight recess but that it presume[d] that nothing but the [defendant's] testimony will be discussed during a brief recess. [23] Beckham contends that the trial court's act of barring his counsel from discussing his ongoing testimony is reversible error under Geders . We reject Beckham's argument because Geders involved a trial court's complete denial of a defendant's right to consult with his attorneys during an overnight recess. By contrast, the case at hand involves a trial court's permitting the defendant to have contact with his attorneys during an overnight recess while limiting that contact by telling the attorneys to not discuss their client's ongoing testimony. So the situation in the case before us is different from the blanket prohibition on attorney-client contact condemned in Geders . As the Court held in Perry , we do not believe the defendant has a constitutional right to discuss [his] testimony while it is in process. [24] All the trial judge did in the case at hand was attempt to minimize the risk that Beckham would get coaching tips before the resumption of his cross-examination. Since the trial judge's actions attempted to protect the integrity of the proceedings and did not impermissibly limit all attorney-client contact during the waning minutes of the overnight recess, we hold that the trial court's admonition to counsel did not abridge Beckham's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.