Geders v. United States
425 U.S. 80 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An order preventing a criminal defendant from consulting with counsel during a substantial overnight recess violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel, as the right to counsel must prevail over a court's interest in preventing potential witness coaching.
Facts:
- Geders and several co-defendants were charged with conspiracy to import marihuana from Colombia into the United States.
- The conspiracy involved plans to fly approximately 1,000 pounds of marihuana into the country.
- The pilot hired for the flight informed the United States Customs Service of the arrangements.
- At his trial, Geders testified in his own defense.
- His counsel completed direct examination at 4:55 p.m., just before the court recessed for the evening.
- The trial judge ordered Geders not to discuss the case with anyone, including his attorney, during the 17-hour overnight recess before cross-examination was to begin.
- The judge's order was a standard instruction given to all witnesses whose testimony was interrupted by a recess.
Procedural Posture:
- Geders was indicted by a grand jury and tried in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
- Following a jury trial, Geders was convicted on all counts.
- Geders, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Geders's failure to show he was specifically prejudiced by the order was fatal to his appeal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the Sixth Amendment question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's order preventing a criminal defendant from consulting with his attorney during a 17-hour overnight recess, which occurred between the defendant's direct and cross-examination, violate his Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
Yes. An order preventing a defendant from consulting with counsel about anything during a 17-hour overnight recess between his direct and cross-examination impinges upon his right to the assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. A criminal defendant is not merely a witness; they have a fundamental right to consult with their attorney throughout the trial. While a judge has broad power to control proceedings and sequester witnesses to prevent improper influence, a complete bar on communication for a sustained period is too great an intrusion on the Sixth Amendment right. Overnight recesses are critical periods for an accused and counsel to discuss trial strategy, review the day's events, and prepare. The risk of improper 'coaching' by counsel does not justify such a restriction, as other methods, such as skillful cross-examination or arranging testimony to be completed without interruption, are available to address that concern. When the defendant's right to counsel conflicts with the prosecutor's desire for an uncoached cross-examination during a long recess, the Sixth Amendment right must prevail.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by an order preventing a defendant from consulting with his attorney during an overnight recess. The principles articulated by the majority should apply to any order barring communication between a defendant and attorney, not just long recesses, unless the communication would interfere with the orderly progress of the trial. A defendant should not have to demonstrate prejudice from such an order, as it is inherently suspect and requires justification from the government. The fear of unethical conduct by an attorney is not a sufficient justification for limiting a defendant's access to counsel; the legal system must presume that attorneys will act ethically.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a strong protection for the attorney-client relationship during a criminal trial, clarifying that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is not suspended simply because they have taken the witness stand. It creates a bright-line rule against trial court orders that completely sever communication between a defendant and counsel for a substantial period like an overnight recess. This precedent limits a trial judge's discretion to control proceedings, prioritizing a defendant's constitutional rights over prophylactic measures aimed at preventing witness coaching. Future courts must consider less restrictive means to ensure testimony integrity before imposing such a drastic limitation on the right to counsel.
Unlock the full brief for Geders v. United States