This question should be answered in CREA format (Conclusion, Rule, Explanation, Application). Please include all relevant keywords, terms, and phrases when discussing each topic.
Petitioner was tried and convicted by a jury of participating in a brutal murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault. His defense was that he had not taken an active part in the abduction or the homicide and that his participation was the product of duress. Evidence offered on his behalf indicated that he was mildly retarded and that he was a nonviolent person who could easily be influenced by others. He took the stand and began to testify in his own defense after a lunch recess.
At the conclusion of his direct testimony, the trial judge declared a 15-minute recess, and, without advance notice to counsel, ordered that petitioner not be allowed to talk to anyone, including his lawyer, during the break. When the trial resumed, defense counsel moved for a mistrial claiming that his client would be denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel unless Petitioner was allowed to meet with counsel prior to cross-examination. The trial court refused to grant the mistrial or to reconsider the decision to deny Petitioner access to counsel during the break.
If the Petitioner is found guilty and appeals his conviction, the trial court decision should be:
NotepadClick anywhere in notepad to add a note
First, consider the petitioner’s general right to the assistance of counsel during trial. Then, consider the authority of trial judges when declaring short recesses.