Rose v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• holding that “a restriction on a defendant’s right to consult with his attorney during a brief routine recess is constitutionally impermissible,” and reversing the conviction of a co-defendant witness ordered not to talk to her lawyer during an overnight recess
• grave doubts whether brief restrictions during trial recesses can be squared with Geders; conviction reversed on other grounds
• mere discrepancy between dates of conspiracy contained in the order of extradition and those in the indictment not a violation of the principal of specialty
• defendant arrested without warrant retained in custody more than twenty hours without filing of formal charge in violation of statute requiring release if no charge brought within twenty hours of seizure
• blanket restriction imposed during lunch recess
• per se rule applied prospectively