## Facts

- John A. Geders was tried in federal court on narcotics-related charges and testified in his own defense.
- His direct examination ended, and the court called a routine overnight recess before cross-examination.
- At the prosecutor’s request, the trial judge ordered Geders not to consult with his attorney “about anything” during the approximately 17-hour recess.
- Defense counsel objected, but the court maintained the no-consultation order.
- Geders was convicted, and the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court violates the Sixth Amendment by forbidding a criminal defendant from consulting with counsel “about anything” during a routine overnight recess occurring between the defendant’s direct and cross-examination.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment affirming the conviction and remanded.
- The Court held that an order preventing a defendant from consulting counsel “about anything” during an overnight recess between direct and cross-examination deprives the defendant of the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment protects a criminal defendant’s ability to consult with counsel during trial, including during an overnight recess, on matters beyond the content of ongoing testimony.
- Although trial courts have broad authority to sequester nonparty witnesses and control the order of proof, a defendant is not equivalent to a nonparty witness for sequestration purposes because the defendant must consult counsel about trial events, strategy, and the significance of testimony.
- Concerns about “coaching” do not justify a blanket prohibition on attorney–client consultation during an ordinary overnight recess; less restrictive tools include effective cross-examination and trial management techniques that reduce interruptions between direct and cross-examination.
- When the defendant’s right to consult counsel during an overnight recess conflicts with the prosecution’s desire to preserve an uninterrupted cross-examination, the conflict must be resolved in favor of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

## Conclusion

A trial court may not broadly bar a criminal defendant from consulting with counsel during a routine overnight recess between direct and cross-examination; such an order violates the Sixth Amendment and requires reversal and remand.


Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 (1976)