Under the Sixth Amendment, does a defendant forfeit the right to directly challenge the court's order appeal on the grounds of complete actual or constructive denial of counsel on an extended recess due to defense counsel's and/or defendant's failure to object to a sequestration order in the trial court, where no colloquy was conducted with the defendant?

Federal Circuits have broadly held that the Perry v. Leeke and U.S. v Geders decisions protect the right to discuss testimony on an extended or overnight recess, yet many state courts have declined to follow. Although this is a matter of first impression in Wisconsin, the Supreme Court has declined to rule on the issue. Under the Sixth Amendment, does a defendant forfeit the right to directly challenge the court ’s order appeal on the grounds of complete actual or constructive denial of counsel on an extended recess due to defense counsel ’s and/or defendant ’s failure to object to a sequestration order in the trial court, where no colloquy was conducted with the defendant? Does a trial court violate the Sixth Amendment where, absent colloquy with the defendant, it applies an order that restricts clientcounsel discussion of his testimony on an overnight recess? Article I § 10, clause 1, of the Federal Constitution protects parties from ex post facto impairment of a contract. An accused driver seeking an independent chemical test is subjected to substantively different terms than those stated to him in the consent agreement, Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4), by the application of Wis. Stat § 343.305(5)(a) after the fact. Is WIS.STAT. § 343.305(5)(b) an ex post facto impairment to the contractual agreement between the State and an accused driver in WIS. STAT. § 343.305(4), in violation of United States Constitution Art. I § 10, clause 1, and Wisconsin Constitution Article 1, § 12? Was the petitioner deprived of a reasonable opportunity to obtain an additional test of his own choosing provided in WIS. STAT. § 343.305(4) by way of the constitutional impairment described above? An instance where a jury panelist failed to disclose their presence and interactions in the immediate aftermath of the event represents a matter of first impression (to the knowledge of Petitioner,) and requires a distinct examination under McDonough Power Equipment.