Document: 425 U.S. 80 96 S.Ct. 1330 47 L.Ed.2d 592 John A. GEDERS, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 74-5968. Argued Dec. 1, 1975. Decided March 30, 1976. Syllabus The trial court's order preventing petitioner, the defendant in a federal criminal prosecution, from consulting his counsel "about anything" during 17-hour overnight recess between direct- and cross-examination Held to deprive petitioner of right assistance guaranteed by Sixth Amendment. Pp. 86-91. (a) A judge has broad power sequester nonparty witnesses before, during, after their testimony restrain them "tailoring" testimony, aid detecting less-than-candid (in case called before is completed) prevent improper attempts influence light already given. But sequestration applied affects quite differently witness, who presumably no stake trial's outcome little, other than own discuss with counsel. be present for all may attorney up time he takes witness stand, so accomplishes less when recess. ordinarily ill-equipped comprehend process without lawyer's guidance; often must consult trial, recesses discusses events day's significance. 87-89. (b) problem possible on or "coaching" can dealt ways, such as prosecutor's skillful discover whether occurred recess, judge's directing that examination continue interruption until completed, otherwise arranging sequence will completed interruption. 89-91. (c) To extent conflict remains defendant's an desire cross-examine intervention counsel, risk "coaching," must, under Amendment, resolved favor guidance P. 91 5 Cir., 502 F.2d reversed remanded. Seymour L. Honig, petitioner. Sidney M. Glazer, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari consider not regular while was stand shortly begin, deprived him violation 2 grand jury Middle District Florida returned indictments charging several codefendants conspiracy import illegal importation controlled substance into United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371 21 952(a), possession marihuana, 841(a). charges grew out plans defendants fly about 1,000 pounds marihuana Colombia might have succeeded but fact pilot charter plane informed States Customs Service arrangements. 3 one codefendant commenced Tuesday, October 9, 1973. Petitioner testified defense 16, Wednesday, 17. Petitioner's concluded direct at 4:55 p. m. Tuesday. When court recessed night, departed, prosecutor asked instruct anyone. Throughout had given same instruction every whose interrupted 4 objected, explaining believed confer client matters imminent cross-examination, wished problems relating client. indicated confidence would properly confine discussion, expressed some doubt able do so, saying: "I think understand it if I told just talk you; better you anything." suggested could opportunity immediately what were next day, grant day petitioner's ended. Counsel persisted objection, although appropriately did comply order.1 convened morning, received permission reopen which followed finished morning; then luncheon redirect yet come—was permitted noon following convicted three counts; sentenced concurrent three-year prison terms. 6 Court Appeals affirmed conviction. v. Fink, (CA5 1974 On point here issue, held failure claim any prejudice resulting inability evening fatal appeal. In holding, relied Leighton, 386 822 (CA2 1967), cert. denied, 390 1025, 88 1412, 20 282 (1968), dealing similar rejected Third Circuit's position need shown, Venuto, 182 519 (1950), involving also disposed claims error. limited forbidding consultation denied 421 929, 95 1654, 44 86. 7 Our cases consistently recognized important role plays system justice. "(T)he mere moderator, governor purpose assuring its proper conduct determining questions law." Quercia 289 466, 469, 53 698, 77 L.Ed. 1321, 1324 (1933). does unfold like play actors script; there scenario none. meet situations they arise this cope complexities contingencies inherent adversary process. end, determine generally parties adduce proof; determination reviewed only abuse discretion. Goldsby 160 70, 74, 16 216, 218, 40 343, 345 (1895); Martinez-Villanueva, 463 1336 (CA9 1972); Nelson 415 483, 487 1969), 396 1060, 90 751, 24 754 (1970). Within limits, control scope rebuttal Chrzanowski, 573, 575-576 (CA3 1974); Perez, 491 167, 173 (CA9), Sub nom., Lombera 419 858, 106, 42 92 (1974); refuse allow cumulative, repetitive, irrelevant Hamling 418 87, 127, 94 2887, 2912, 41 590, 626 County Macon Shores, 97 272, 889 (1877); witnesses, Nobles, 422 225, 231, 2160, 2166, 45 141, 149 (1975); Glasser 315 60, 83, 62 457, 470, 86 680, 706 (1942). If truth fairness are sacrificed, exert substantial over proceedings. 8 progress and, within limits system, shape includes testimony. Holder 150 91, 92, 14 10, 37 1010 (1893); Robinson, 894 (CA7 Eastwood, 489 818, 821 1974). Wigmore notes centuries ago, practice "already English independent continuous existence, even those earlier modes preceded part our inheritance common Germanic J. Wigmore, Evidence 1837, 348 (3d ed., 1940). aim imposing "the rule witnesses," sequestering sometimes called, twofold. It exercises restraint witnesses; aids candid. See Supra, 1838; F. Wharton, Criminal 405 (C. Torcia ed. 1972). Sequestering serves third well 9 sequestered both prosecution each instructed testifying Applied give evidence, orders sound judicial discretion challenged here. 10 simply witness; defendant. different way trial. counsel; Moreover, rule" rather because matter usually stand. 11 issue many continued calendar days. 17 hours long. accused Such times intensive work, tactical decisions made strategies reviewed. lawyer obtain information relevant pursue inquiry along lines fully explored earlier. At very least, gives chance significance events. recognize precisely deal guidance. 12 "The heard be, cases, little avail . (A defendant) unfamiliar rules evidence. .He lacks skill knowledge adequately prepare defense, though (may) perfect one. He requires guiding hand step proceedings against him." Powell Alabama, 287 45, 68-69, 55, 64, 158, 170 (1932). 13 Argersinger Hamlin, 407 25, 31-36, 2006, 2009-2012, 32 530, 535-537 (1972); Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 343-345, 83 792, 796, 799, 804 (1963). Other courts infringes upon right. 1950); People Noble, Ill.2d 425, 248 N.E.2d (1969); Commonwealth Werner, 206 Pa.Super. 498, 214 A.2d 276 (1965). see Prevost, 219 Mich. 233, 189 N.W. (1922).2 There ways short putting barrier long period hours. opposing weapons "coached" witnesses. subject, course, court. Skillful develop record closing argument exploit raising credibility, developed coached how respond remaining cross-examination. addition judge, doubts observe ethical witnesses,3 completed. considers high arrange That feasible due length alter availability, most solution cut off communication presented record. Inconvenience parties, personnel occasionally result postponed continues session beyond normal adjournment hour. crowded dockets, frequently sit through recess; convenience yield concern integrity itself. 15 variety further served placing sustained lawyer. Brooks Tennessee, 406 605, 1891, 358 (1972). prevented normally reach, we limitations imposed circumstances. hold impinged Accordingly, judgment reversed, remanded Appeals, directions consistent opinion. Reversed 19 STEVENS took consideration decision case. MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN joins, concurring. join Court's opinion, agree conclusion violates Amendment 22 involve barring "brief routine day."1 Ante, 89 n. 2. is, true. add, however, observation suggesting general constitutional infirmity inhere recess." my view, principles adopted today applicable analysis Any attorney, least where interfere orderly expeditious 23 Thus, holds, prohibiting impinges make preliminary showing prejudice. inherently suspect, initial justification Government. expressly considered avoid unethical counseling attorney.2 holds fear sufficient ground true absent unusual circumstances, take it, trial.3 function according design, assume responsibilities legal find difficult conceive circumstances justify limiting attorney's serve disserve violating accepted standards. survive inquiry, reason conduct. discussion among (Mr. Rinehart), Blasingame), summarized text, was: "MR. BLASINGAME: Has been now anyone whatsoever, including attorneys all? RINEHART: feel improper. always don't so. "THE COURT: Well know requested another effect; let's clear your except accident 'accident' means something him. "Now, 5:00 o'clock recessing tomorrow, opportunity. "If 2:00 said 'If please, recess' then, outside presence Jury, said, 'because want client'; said? You probably Your Honor. Should have? Not else do, subject cross-examination? Would anyway. talked him? know. felt brought Direct should covered Before cross-examined? Even cross-examined. Sometimes remember things Yes, sir. entitled Re-direct. Right. Now appreciate answer question. trouble being responsive. All My question is: While defendant, "You practicing law time. coach say questions. Then about? call witness. numerous strategic about. questions, Rinehart, disciplined man. trained law. And tell me, instance, accept statement qualification. Honor, assure that. client, far know, training; anything today. it. anything. ask thinks ought morning. "Let's put way. evening. comes cross-examined, re-direct, else. rest month, necessary, fair going let strategy place situation. "And wrong; better, ruling. ruling, obey move side, please. Geders, up. back tomorrow morning 9:30 "Do that? GEDERS: understand. right, thank you. (Emphasis added.) ambiguity colloquy appears direction "not (counsel) (CA relied, involved embargo brief emphasize us Schrimsher, 493 848 Crutcher, 239 1968), 394 908, 1018, Krull 240 122 (CA5), 353 915, 764, 668 (1957). Cf. Pendergraft State, 191 So.2d 830 (Miss.1966). An respect distinction discussing seeking improperly Ethical Consideration 7-26 American Bar Association Code Professional Responsibility (1975) states: Disciplinary Rules prohibit use fraudulent, false, perjured knowingly participates introduction evidence discipline. should, admissible desires unless knows, facts perjured." Rule 7-102 provides part: "(A) representation shall not: "(6) Participate creation preservation knows obvious false. "(7) assist fraudulent. "(8) Knowingly engage contrary Rule." these strictures constitute serious breach duty court, treated accordingly. note full difference influence. assume, repeated reference intended dispositive significance, holding enough cover recesses. For counseling, 3. suggests, "doubts witnesses" actions postponing extending hour complete 90-91. steps fashion, exceed bounds am unwilling endorse notion served, nevertheless free belief likely act unethically.

Category: 0