Update 11/1/25:
The updated model (experience-3) continues to predict reverse (61 percent), with vote ordering approximately as before. Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kagan are the closest votes.
Experience-3 predictions
Update 10/22/25:
As before, the model thought that affirm was most likely before argument. After argument, however, the updated model (experience-2) now sees reversal as the most likely outcome (73 percent; the earlier model thought it was a coin toss). Vote ordering remains roughly the same, with a conservative bloc most likely to dissent and affirm.
Updated vote predictions
Initial post:
This case involves a trial court prohibiting a criminal defendant from talking with counsel during an overnight recess. Did that violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel? The model’s pre-argument prediction favored an affirmance (reversal probability of 36 percent), meaning that the model thought the Court would say that this prohibition did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
Oral argument was held on Monday, however, and that shifted the model’s prediction—it now thinks that there is about a 50 percent chance of reversal. This is due to substantial shifts toward the appellant (the criminal defendant) from Sotomayor, Jackson, Kavanaugh, and to lesser extents Kagan and Roberts. It is important to note that these shifts should not be understood as the “effect” of oral argument. More properly, the shifts should be thought of as oral argument clarifying to us where the justices stand on the case—and where they likely stood before oral argument. Figure 1 shows the shifts in predictions resulting from oral argument.
Pre- and Post-Argument Predictions
Substantively, this case turns on the line between (permissible) counseling on trial strategy and (impermissible) “coaching” on testimony. The trial court’s prohibition was designed to guard against coaching, and much of the questioning focused on whether another workable line could be drawn. The Court also needs to decide how to reconcile two precedents involving no-discussion orders, one saying that the order violated the Sixth Amendment, and the other saying that it did not.
Overall, I expect this to be a close case. Roberts and Kagan especially could both easily vote either way on this case.
