Two Criminal Cases Argued in SCOTUS This Week

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in two criminal cases this week:

Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel—Villarreal v. Texas, No. 24-577 (U.S. Apr. 7, 2025) (cert. granted) (Whether a trial court abridges the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess.); Argument Oct. 6, 2025 (audio) (transcript); Docket; Opinion (TBD); Opinion Below (Tex. Crim. App.); Petitioner’s Counsel of Record, Suart Banner, UCLA School of Law Supreme Court Clinic, Los Angeles, CA.

Circuit Split: 9-4

• Nine lower courts hold that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to confer with his attorney about his testimony during an overnight recess—six federal courts of appeals (2d, 4th, 7th, 9th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits), and the District of Columbia and New York courts of appeals, and New Jersey supreme court.
• Four lower courts hold that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee this right—the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and Delaware, Kentucky, and Ohio Supreme Courts.

Double Jeopardy—Barrett v. United States, No. 24-5774 (U.S. Mar. 3, 2025) (cert. granted) (Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and§ 924(j), a question that divides seven circuits but about which the Solicitor General and Petitioner agree.); Argument Oct. 7, 2025 (audio) (transcript); Docket; Opinion (TBD); Opinion Below (2d Cir.); Petitioner’s Counsel of Record, Matthew B. Larsen, Federal Defenders of New York, New York, NY.

Circuit Split: 5-2 

• Four federal courts of appeals hold that imposing two sentences for § 924(c) and § 924(j) convictions stemming from the same conduct violates the Double Jeopardy Clause—1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th Circuits.   
• Two federal courts of appeals hold the Double Jeopardy is not violated because Congress intended to authorize cumulative sentences for a defendants convicted on relate § 924(c) and § 924(j)—2nd and 11th Circuits.

Special notes. Because the Government agrees with Petitioner Barrett, the Court appointed amicus to argue in support of the judgment below. Also, the Court declined to grant certiorari review of Barrett’s second question presented: whether “Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A), a question left open after” United States v Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022). United States v. Stoney, 62 F.4th 108, 113 (3d Cir. 2023).