The Syrian government appeared to have fallen early Sunday as rebel troops declared the capital Damascus “free” after entering the city to scant resistance from forces of the Russia-backed regime of dictator Bashar Assad.
The rebels claimed that Assad had fled the capital, losing his decades-long grip on power, after a lightning-fast offensive by opposition forces in recent days.
“We declare the city of Damascus free from the tyrant Bashar al-Assad,” the Military Operations Command said in a post on Telegram on Sunday.
“To the displaced all over the world, a free Syria awaits you,” the statement added.
Syria’s army command notified officers on Sunday that Assad’s regime had ended, Reuters reported. The Syrian army later said it was continuing operations against “terrorist groups” in the towns of Hama and Homs and Deraa countryside, according to the report.
Syrian state television aired a video statement by a group of men saying that Assad has been overthrown and all detainees in jails have been set free, the Associated Press reported. The man who read the statement said the Operations Room to Conquer Damascus, an opposition group, called on all opposition fighters and citizens to preserve state institutions of “the free Syrian state,” according to the report.
The head of a Syrian opposition war monitor had said earlier that Assad had left the country for an undisclosed location, fleeing ahead of insurgents who said they had entered Damascus following the remarkably swift advance across the country, according to media reports.
Syrian rebels encircled Damascus on Saturday after a lightning offensive that saw the opposition forces take control of key cities in the country.
On Friday, the Syrian army confirmed it had lost control of the strategic city of Hama to the rebels, an al Qaeda breakaway called Tahrir al-Sham. The rebels seized Syria’s largest city of Aleppo late last month in an effective offensive, forcing government forces to withdraw.
Statues of Assad’s father and brother were toppled in now rebel-held cities, as well as in Damascus suburbs.
Assad had been in power for 25 years and his family ruled Syria for more than half a century. His Iran- and Russia-allied regime brutally curtailed human rights, deploying chemical weapons against civilians as part of the civil war that has raged in the country since 2011.
The fast-moving rebel insurgency put two of Russia’s strategic military assets — an airbase in the Latakia province and a naval facility in Tartus on the Mediterranean near the Lebanese border — under serious threat, Reuters reported on Saturday. Satellite imagery showed ships have been leaving the Tartus naval base for several days.
The Russian Embassy in Damascus advised Russian citizens to leave Syria “in the light of the difficult military and political situation.”
The foreign ministers of Russia, Turkey and Iran reportedly met in Doha and agreed on the necessity to put an immediate end to “hostilities” in Syria, according to Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said Russians getting pushed out of Syria was “the best thing that can happen to them” in a post on his Truth Social platform.
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/HhgF8E8VkBYXhl0JAcuYP3n9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial" title="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/cameras-banner-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial" title="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&linkname=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Flimiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial%2F&title=Limiting%20a%20defendant%E2%80%99s%20ability%20to%20confer%20with%20counsel%20during%20a%20murder%20trial" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/limiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial/" data-a2a-title="Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial">Share</a></p><p><em> </em><em>The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available </em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/faqs-announcements-of-orders-and-opinions/#relists_explained"><em>here</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p>Over the past couple of conferences, the Supreme Court has continued to clear out the rolls of relisted cases. Remarkably, the Supreme Court denied review without comment in the <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/justices-consider-next-steps-in-murder-case-in-which-prosecution-admits-error/">most recent newly relisted case</a>, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/escobar-v-texas-2/"><em>Escobar v. Texas</em></a>, in which Texas conceded that erroneous DNA evidence had contributed to the defendant’s conviction for capital murder.</p>
<p>The court denied review on March 24 in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/franklin-v-new-york/"><em>Franklin v. New York</em></a>, involving the right, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, of criminal defendants to confront witnesses against them. But Justices <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-330_h315.pdf">Samuel Alito</a> and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-330_h315.pdf#page=5">Neil Gorsuch</a>, in separate opinions respecting the denial of certiorari, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/alito-and-gorsuch-call-for-court-to-reconsider-confrontation-clause-precedent/">suggested that the court would need to revisit</a> the landmark 2004 decision in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7792517891204110362&q=crawford+v.+washington&hl=en&as_sdt=3,47"><em>Crawford v.Washington</em></a> that narrowed the use of hearsay testimony in criminal trials.<span id="more-319465"></span></p>
<p>The court also denied review this week in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/shockley-v-vandergriff/"><em>Shockley v. Vandergriff</em></a>, which asked the justices to decide whether the fact that an actual judge considered a prisoner’s claim to be meritorious was enough to demonstrate that “reasonable jurists could debate” the claim — the showing necessary for a prisoner to obtain the “certificate of appealability” necessary under federal law to appeal the denial of the prisoner’s habeas corpus petition. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-517_4fc4.pdf">dissented from the denial of certiorari</a>.</p>
<p>That brings us to the upcoming conference. There are 96 petitions and motions on the docket for this Friday’s conference. Only one of them is on its first relist: <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/villarreal-v-texas/"><em>Villarreal v. Texas</em></a>.</p>
<p>David Asa Villarreal was the only defense witness at his trial in Texas state court for murdering his boyfriend and methamphetamine supplier Aaron Estrada. His direct examination was interrupted at noon by a lengthy overnight recess. The trial judge, in an instruction whose limits could charitably be described as “not a model of clarity,” told defense counsel to act as though Villarreal were still “on the stand,” and thus not to confer with him about his testimony overnight. In a series of offhand comments, the judge suggested counsel might still confer about sentencing and trial logistics, just not about Villarreal’s testimony. Villareal’s attorney objected that such an instruction interfered with his client’s right to confer with his counsel. The next day, Villarreal finished testifying, was convicted, and drew a 60-year sentence.</p>
<p>Villarreal’s case implicates two aging Supreme Court criminal procedure precedents. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/80/"><em>Geders v. United States</em></a>, held that a trial court violates the Sixth Amendment by prohibiting the defendant from speaking with his counsel during an overnight recess between the defendant’s direct and cross-examination. But <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/272/"><em>Perry v. Leeke</em></a>, 13 years later, held that a trial court does not violate the Sixth Amendment by prohibiting the defendant from consulting his counsel during a fifteen-minute recess between his direct testimony and cross-examination.</p>
<p>By a 2-1 vote, the court of appeals affirmed Villarreal’s conviction, though noting confusion among the lower courts on the subject. And Texas’s highest court for criminal appeals, the aptly named Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, likewise affirmed by a divided vote. It concluded that by placing off limits only discussion of the defendant’s ongoing testimony, the trial court had complied with the Sixth Amendment.</p>
<p>Villarreal now seeks review, asking the court for further guidance about the universe of circumstances not covered by <em>Geders</em> and <em>Perry</em>. Texas opposes review on the ground that, “[w]hile there is a split of authority concerning such orders,” orders restricting a defendant’s conferring with counsel during substantial recesses “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/348537/20250225093718236_250219a%20BIO%20for%20efiling.pdf#page=17">are rarely issued</a>.” The state argues that the decision in Villarreal’s case comports with the Supreme Court’s Sixth Amendment precedents.</p>
<p>On the one hand, it has been a long, long time since the Supreme Court last weighed in on this issue: Most readers would consider me <a href="https://store.thanatos.net/cdn/shop/products/2021KY-650_1024x1024@2x.jpg?v=1658666493">an old man</a>, I have been practicing for over 30 years, and I didn’t even begin law school until <a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61ylKuCU26L._SY355_.jpg">the year after <em>Perry</em> was decided</a>. But the current courts shows little appetite for weighing in on constitutional issues of trial practice. This case seems unlikely to result in more than an opinion dissenting from denial of review. I would be happy to eat crow on this.</p>
<h3><strong>New Relists</strong></h3>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/villarreal-v-texas/"><em>Villarreal v. Texas</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-557.html">24-557</a><br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether a trial court abridges a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess.</p>
<h3><strong>Returning Relists</strong></h3>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/apache-stronghold-v-united-states/"><em>Apache Stronghold v. United States</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-291.html">24-291</a><br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether the government “substantially burdens” religious exercise under the <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-42-the-public-health-and-welfare/chapter-21b-religious-freedom-restoration/section-2000bb-1-free-exercise-of-religion-protected">Religious Freedom Restoration Act</a>, or must satisfy heightened scrutiny under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, when it singles out a sacred site for complete physical destruction, ending specific religious rituals forever.<br />
(Relisted after the Dec. 6, Dec. 13, Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ocean-state-tactical-llc-v-rhode-island/"><em>Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-131.html">24-131</a><br />
<strong>Issues: </strong>(1) Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition-feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.<br />
(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snope-v-brown/"><em>Snope v. Brown</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-203.html">24-203</a><br />
<strong>Issue:</strong> Whether the Constitution permits Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.<br />
(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/l-m-v-town-of-middleborough-massachusetts/"><em>L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-410.html">24-410</a><br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether school officials may presume substantial disruption or a violation of the rights of others from a student’s silent, passive, and untargeted ideological speech simply because that speech relates to matters of personal identity, even when the speech responds to the school’s opposing views, actions, or policies.<br />
(Relisted after the Feb. 21, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/neilly-v-michigan/"><em>Neilly v. Michigan</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-395.html">24-395</a><br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether restitution ordered as part of a criminal sentence is punishment for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause.<br />
(Relisted after the Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ellingburg-v-united-states/"><em>Ellingburg v. United States</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-482.html">24-482</a><br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether criminal restitution under the <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/part-ii-criminal-procedure/chapter-232-miscellaneous-sentencing-provisions/section-3663a-mandatory-restitution-to-victims-of-certain-crimes">Mandatory Victim Restitution Act</a> is penal for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause.<br />
(Relisted after the Feb. 28, Mar. 7, Mar. 21 and Mar. 28 conferences.)</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/limiting-a-defendants-ability-to-confer-with-counsel-during-a-murder-trial/">Limiting a defendant’s ability to confer with counsel during a murder trial</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
