Opinion ID: 668541
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Aponte-Vega's Absence from the Charging Conference

Text: 59 Aponte-Vega also contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the district court failed to provide for his presence at the conference at which the court and counsel discussed what instructions would be given to the jury. We find no error. 60 Due process requires that a defendant be present at all stages of the trial to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence. United States v. Fontanez, 878 F.2d 33, 35 (2d Cir.1989) (internal quotes omitted). This requirement has been codified in Fed.R.Crim.P. 43, see United States v. Reiter, 897 F.2d 639, 642 (2d Cir.) (rule 43 encompasses the protections afforded by the sixth amendment confrontation clause, the due process clause of the fifth amendment, and the common law right of presence), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 817, 111 S.Ct. 59, 112 L.Ed.2d 34 (1990), which provides in pertinent part as follows: 61 (a) Presence Required. The defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at the time of the plea, at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided by this rule.... 62 .... 63 (c) Presence Not Required. A defendant need not be present in the following situations: 64 .... 65 (3) At a conference or argument upon a question of law. 66 Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(a), (c). 67 The content of the instructions to be given to the jury is purely a legal matter, see, e.g., United States v. Graves, 669 F.2d 964, 972 (5th Cir.1982), and a conference to discuss those instructions is thus a conference on a question of law at which a defendant need not be present, see, e.g., United States v. Switzer, 252 F.2d 139, 145 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 922, 78 S.Ct. 1363, 2 L.Ed.2d 1366 (1958); United States v. Sherman, 821 F.2d 1337, 1339 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Graves, 669 F.2d at 972; United States v. Gregorio, 497 F.2d 1253, 1259-60 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024, 95 S.Ct. 501, 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974). 68 Accordingly, the district court did not violate Aponte-Vega's rights by proceeding with the charging conference in his absence.