referring especially to those dangers faced by an undercover agent working in the drug field. We have carefully examined this evidence as well as the other evidence offered in the Government’s case-in-chief, and we conclude that the evidence and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom amply support the verdict. Conway next argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when the trial court ordered him not to discuss the case with his attorney during a lunch break that interrupted the cross-examination of Conway. We agree. The constitutionality of a sequestration order that spanned a greater length of time was before the Supreme Court in Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 96 S.Ct. 1330, 47 L.Ed 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 908, 97 S.Ct. 1179, 51 L.Ed.2d 584 (1977) (<HOLDING>); see United States v. Vesaas, 586 F.2d 101,
holding that a trial courts order that defendant not consult with his attorney during an overnight recess during trial violated the sixth amendment holding language reciting that employee acknowledges that heshe has been advised to consult with an attorney prior to executing this agreement was insufficient to meet statutory requirement that employer must advise employee in writing to consult an attorney prior to signing the waiver holding that the right to have counsel present means the right to have counsel physically present during the interrogation not merely the right to consult an attorney by telephone holding that defendants waiver was knowing and intelligent even when police withheld information from defendant that his attorney sought to consult with him holding that a restriction on a defendants right to consult with his attorney during two brief routine recesses one 20 minutes and the other a minute is constitutionally impermissible