In Re C.R. v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that order directing defendant not to consult with attorney during a fifteen minute recess at the end of direct examination of defendant was constitutional
• recognizing that \nondiscussion orders are a corollary of the broader rule that witnesses may be sequestered to lessen the danger that their testimony will be influenced by hearing what other witnesses have to say\
• holding that prohibition of consultation between defendant and defense counsel during brief recess between defendant’s testimony on direct and cross-examination did not amount to complete denial of counsel
• holding that prohibition of consultation between defendant and defense counsel during brief recess between defendant’s testimony on direct and cross-examination did not amount to complete denial of counsel
• holding that defendant does not have constitutional right to advice during “short recess in which it is appropriate to presume that nothing but the testimony will be discussed”
• holding that prohibition of consultation between defendant and defense counsel during brief recess between defendant's testi- mony on direct and cross-examination did not amount to complete denial of counsel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).