When someone accused of a crime chooses to take the witness stand in their own defense, the trial does not stop just because a short break is called. Judges sometimes pause the proceedings for a few minutes, and a question arises: during that pause, can the defendant step aside and talk with their own lawyer?
The answer is not as simple as it may seem. Federal courts and Florida courts have wrestled with this issue for decades, and the rules can differ depending on how long the break is and whether the person is in the middle of testifying.
This tension is at the center of Gingery v. State, a recent decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal. The court affirmed the convictions but used the opinion to explain a genuine conflict between federal and Florida precedent — and asked the Florida Supreme Court to settle it.
Key Takeaway
The court held there was no federal constitutional violation when a judge told a testifying defendant not to talk to his lawyer during a short, five-minute break — and that even if Florida law was violated, any error was harmless.
The question is more specific:
- Does the length of the recess matter?
- Does it matter whether the defendant is in the middle of testifying?
- Does Florida law protect the right to counsel more broadly than federal law?
What happened in this case?
The defendant was tried on charges including sexual battery with force and chose to testify in his own defense. While he was testifying, the trial court called a short recess.
Over an objection from his lawyer, the judge instructed the defendant not to speak with anyone — including his attorney — during that roughly five-minute break. He was later convicted on two counts of sexual battery with force and sentenced to prison followed by sex offender probation.
Why is a short recess treated differently?
The courts have long distinguished between different kinds of breaks. In one leading United States Supreme Court case, a ban on consultation during a long overnight recess was found to violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, because such a long break is normally used to discuss strategy and the day’s events.
Later, in a case involving a fifteen-minute afternoon recess, the United States Supreme Court reached a different result. It held that the federal Constitution does not require a judge to allow a defendant to consult with a lawyer while the defendant’s testimony is still in progress, if the judge has a good reason to pause briefly.
The core distinction
A long overnight break is treated as protected time for planning and strategy. A brief pause in the middle of testimony is treated differently, because any conversation is likely to be about the testimony that is still underway.
Where does Florida law fit in?
The Florida Supreme Court had earlier taken a broader view, holding that no matter how brief the recess, a defendant in a criminal case must have access to his attorney. It later reaffirmed that view in a case involving a one-hour lunch break, calling the restriction clear error.
Some Florida appeals courts have read those decisions to mean that Florida law protects the right to counsel more strongly than federal law requires. The Fifth District noted this reading but also observed that the earlier Florida decisions did not clearly separate the federal constitutional right from the state constitutional right.
What did the Fifth District decide?
Applying the United States Supreme Court’s more recent rule, the court found no Sixth Amendment violation in barring the defendant from consulting counsel during the five-minute break in his testimony. It explained that Florida courts must follow United States Supreme Court decisions interpreting the federal Constitution.
The court acknowledged uncertainty about whether the earlier Florida decisions might still provide a separate state-law protection. But it concluded that even if there was error under Florida law, that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt based on its review of the record. On that basis, it affirmed the convictions.
Why does this matter, and what happens next?
This decision highlights a real disagreement in the law about whether — and when — a testifying defendant can be kept from speaking with a lawyer during a brief courtroom break. Because the answer may turn on federal versus Florida constitutional principles, the outcome can depend on which line of cases controls.
Recognizing the confusion, the court certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court, asking whether a trial court errs under Florida law by barring a testifying defendant from consulting counsel during a short daytime recess. A separate concurring opinion agreed with affirming the convictions but reasoned that there was no error at all. The Florida Supreme Court may ultimately provide a clearer answer.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information only, is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not predict or guarantee any result. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before deciding, ask for free written information about the lawyer’s qualifications and experience.