In State v. Nguyen, 253 Conn. 639, 650, 756 A.2d 833 (2000) the Court broadly interpreted the scope of the statute and the rule of practice. In that case, after the trial court had granted a sequestration order, the state overheard defense counsel discussing a prior witness' testimony in the presence of a prospective witness. Id. at 643. In Nguyen, the court granted the sequestration order without any elaboration as to its scope. State v. Nguyen, 253 Conn. 639 at 650, 756 A.2d 833. The defendant argued that the discussion did not violate the sequestration order because that order barred witnesses only from being in the courtroom prior to testifying. The court held, however, that "although the language of Practice Book 42-36 may seem merely to bar a sequestered witness from being in the courtroom when he is not testifying . . . we do not follow so rigid an interpretation. Indeed, such an interpretation would vitiate any sequestration order by exalting form over substance." State v. Nguyen, supra, 253 Conn. at 651.