In the 1988 case Perry v. Leeke, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a trial judge's order preventing a defendant from consulting with his lawyer during a brief recess between his direct testimony and cross-examination did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court held that this practice was necessary to prevent coaching or tailoring of testimony during breaks in proceedings, which could undermine the integrity of testimonial evidence presented at trial. This ruling clarified that while defendants have an absolute right to consult with their attorneys before testifying and after they finish testifying, this does not extend to consultation periods within their actual testimony.

In the dissenting opinion for Perry v. Leeke, Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision significantly undermined a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. He contended that barring communication between a defendant and his lawyer during a recess after direct examination was an unwarranted interference with this constitutional right. The justice emphasized that such conversations are often necessary for lawyers to provide effective assistance by clarifying misunderstandings or preparing their clients for cross-examination. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assumption that these discussions would lead defendants to commit perjury, arguing instead it is more likely they ensure truthful testimony by helping defendants better understand questions and recall events accurately.