The pound has dropped in value and government borrowing costs have sky-rocketed over the last week.
While Labour has insisted financial stability will return, the Tories have been quick to condemn Labour over it.
Co-chair of the Tory Party Nigel Huddleston said this morning that chancellor Rachel Reeves is “making Britain weaker and more vulnerable because of her poor decisions”.
However, on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC presenter pointed out that the Tories found themselves in their own economic mess two years ago, when Liz Truss unveiled her £45bn of unfunded tax cuts in her mini-Budget.
Speaking to shadow chancellor Mel Stride, Kuenssberg said: “You’ve spent this week claiming the government’s responsible for damaging the economy.
“That’s a bit rich coming from the party that had Liz Truss in charge when the markets blew up and the UK’s credibility disappeared, isn’t it?”
Stride claimed that when the current government came into power, the UK had the fastest growth in the G7, near record levels of employment and and that inflation had been brought down from a 40-year high of 11.1%.
But Kuenssberg asked: “Isn’t it actually just blatant opportunism to be trying to get this narrative going suggesting that the government is responsible for an enormous market wobble and turmoil when Liz Truss had that effect on the market with Kwasi Kwarteng a couple of years ago?”
Stride said that the mini-budget is not why “business confidence is falling through the floor” at the moment, but the “actions of the government” at the moment.
But Kuenssberg pointed out that this is “not an issue that is confined to the UK”, with countries such as Germany have also seen their cost of borrowing go up.
“Aren’t you misleading people by trying to suggest this is all about the UK government’s decisions?” the presenter said.
Stride said: “We have the highest borrowing costs now – in 27 years at the 30 year bond rate – in the last 16 years. And what you have to look at now is the spread with other countries. We are an outlier.”
He said it is “much much worse here” than in our competitor countries.
Stride faced similar questions over on Sky News this morning, as presenter Trevor Phillips suggested international markets might be reassured if the Tories “acknowledged that mistakes were made”.
Stride said that he condemned the mini-Budget when he was on the Treasury select committee at the time, but “my party – not always but almost exclusively – been the party of fiscal responsibility.”
“That is the DNA of Conservatives. We believe in sound money,” he said.
Phillips just replied: “I know that being shadow chancellor does not necessarily mean being able to say you’re sorry.”
<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>
Gaza's largest newborns, have been stranded with dwindling supplies and no electricity, as the army extended its control across Gaza City and the north. Al-Shifa…
Mel Stride and Laura Kuenssberg
