# Perry v. Leeke

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 10, 1989 · 488 U.S. 272

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431504

## Case

- **Full name:** PERRY v. LEEKE, COMMISSIONER, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 10, 1989
- **Citations:** 488 U.S. 272; 57 U.S.L.W. 4075; 109 S. Ct. 594; 102 L. Ed. 2d 624; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 306
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennedy
- **Judges:** Stevens, Kennedy, Marshall, Brennan, Blackmun
- **Cited by:** 416 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Declined to follow by State v. Mundon, 121 Haw. 339 (2009).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431504

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that Strickland “intended to make clear that ‘[a]ctual or constructive denial of the assistance of counsel altogether,’ is not subject to the kind of prejudice analysis that is appropriate in determining whether the quality of a lawyer’s performance itself has been …
- holding "it is entirely appropriate for a trial judge to decide, after listening to the direct examination of any witness, whether the defendant or a nondefendant, that cross-examination is more likely to elicit truthful responses if it goes forward without allowing the witnes…
- recognizing that "[it is a common practice for a judge to instruct a witness not to discuss his or her testimony with third parties until the trial is completed" and "[s]uch nondiscussion orders are a corollary of the broader rule that witnesses may be sequestered"
- stating that the Supreme Court has “expressly noted that direct governmental interference with the right to counsel is a different matter” -with regard to whether prejudice must be shown, and collecting representative cases where prejudice need not be proved
- stating that the fact that discussions between a defendant and his attorney “will inevitably include some consideration of the defendant’s ongoing testimony” does not compromise the basic right to “unrestricted access” to counsel regarding trial tactics

## Opinion text

Justice Kennedy,
concurring in part.
I join Parts I and III of the Court’s opinion and the holding that petitioner was not denied his constitutional right to assistance of counsel. In view of our ruling, it is quite unnecessary to discuss whether prejudice must be shown when the right to counsel is denied. I would not address that issue, and so I decline to join Part II of the Court’s opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431504. Public record. Not legal advice.