Opinion ID: 407646
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Confrontation Rights in Using Information from Court-Appointed Psychiatrists

Text: 63 After the jury rendered its advisory sentence of death the trial judge, in the presence of appellant and his counsel, suggested that appellant be examined by two court-appointed psychiatrists prior to the final sentence determination. Appellant's attorney agreed to the examinations, 35 and appellant was subsequently seen by Drs. Coffer and Sprehe. Both doctors submitted reports to the court, which stated that appellant was competent at the time of the examination and had been capable of distinguishing right from wrong when he committed the offense. Dr. Sprehe's report additionally opined that appellant's long standing compulsion to kill someone ... did not involve a break in reality testing and did not involve psychosis.... Dr. Sprehe described appellant as having 64 a long standing sociopathic personality characterized by resort to violence as a solution to his life problems and ( )( ) a rather chaotic life history with a lot of anti-social behavior including an Undesirable Discharge from the Armed Forces and numerous minor criminal convictions and other charges where he was not convicted. He had three rather chaotic marriages and has generally lived his life outside the usual standards of society. 65 Following submission of the reports the judge ordered a hearing, at which the defense attorney waived appellant's right of presence. Dr. Coffer appeared and testified that he did not believe appellant committed the murder while under the influence of extreme emotional or mental pressure nor that appellant's capacity to conform his conduct to law was substantially impaired at the time of the offense. 36 Dr. Sprehe was unable to attend, and defense counsel requested an opportunity to cross-examine him about the report. The judge indicated he would allow Sprehe's testimony to be taken and made part of the record at a later date but proceeded to sentence petitioner without it. 66 Appellant raises two arguments with respect to the psychiatrists' reports and testimony. First, he claims the court's consideration of Dr. Sprehe's report without affording him an opportunity to confront and cross-examine Dr. Sprehe violated his rights to confrontation, due process, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Second, appellant contends his constitutional right to be present at trial was violated by Dr. Coffer's testifying outside his presence and without his knowledge. The district court rejected these claims. The court held that appellant's rights were not violated by his not being afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Sprehe because the trial judge did not consider (Dr. Sprehe's) report in imposing sentence. Moreover, while accepting appellant's argument that his attorney's waiver of his right to be present during Dr. Coffer's testimony was ineffectual because not authorized by appellant personally, the court held that appellant's nonconsensual absence was harmless error. 67
68 The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses is guaranteed to criminal defendants by the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment. Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 418, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 1076, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1068, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). Indeed, it has been said that 69 (t)he primary object of the (confrontation clause) was to prevent depositions or ex parte affidavits ... being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness in which the accused has an opportunity, not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief. 70 Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. at 418-19, 85 S.Ct. at 1076-77 (quoting Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 242-43, 15 S.Ct. 337, 339-40, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895)). Accord Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-16, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1109-10, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974). Cross-examination has been placed on a par with the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard and the right to counsel, which are considered fundamental minimum requirements of a fair trial comporting with the due process clause. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294-95, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1045, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. at 405, 85 S.Ct. at 1068 (both quoting In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273, 68 S.Ct. 499, 507, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948)). So basic is the right that the Supreme Court has held that its denial, without waiver ... would be constitutional error of the first magnitude and no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it. Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129, 131, 88 S.Ct. 748, 749, 19 L.Ed.2d 956 (1968); Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 3, 86 S.Ct. 1245, 1246, 16 L.Ed.2d 314 (1966). 37 71 The rights guaranteed by the sixth amendment, including the right to cross-examination, are only applicable to proceedings that constitute critical stages of the trial. See, e.g., United States v. Harris, 458 F.2d 670, 677-78 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 888, 93 S.Ct. 195, 34 L.Ed.2d 145 (1972) (preliminary hearing); Ryan v. State of Montana, 580 F.2d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 977, 99 S.Ct. 1548, 59 L.Ed.2d 796 (1979) (probation revocation and deferred sentencing hearing); Polizzi v. United States, 550 F.2d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 1976) (judge's in camera questioning of jurors re possible improper influence); United States v. Mitchell, 540 F.2d 1163, 1165 n.1 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1099, 97 S.Ct. 1119, 51 L.Ed.2d 547 (1977) (preliminary hearing). But cf. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 790, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 1763, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) (due process guarantees right of cross-examination in probation revocation hearing); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2604, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (limited right of cross-examination applies to probation revocation proceedings). Traditionally, sentencing hearings have not been accorded the significance of the guilt-determination portion of trial; by and large, sentencing has been left to the broad discretion of the judge or jury, United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 447, 92 S.Ct. 589, 591, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972); McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 91 S.Ct. 1454, 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971), and courts have declined to apply to sentencing most of the procedural rights guaranteed by the sixth amendment. E.g., Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949) (confrontation and cross-examination); United States v. Glick, 463 F.2d 491, 494 (2d Cir. 1972) (factfinding by jury). See also Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962) (right of allocution at sentencing not of constitutional dimension). But see Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S.Ct. 254, 19 L.Ed.2d 336 (1967) (right to assistance of counsel applies at sentencing); Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 87 S.Ct. 1209, 18 L.Ed.2d 326 (1967) (due process guarantees hearing and confrontation in separate post-trial proceeding for indeterminate commitment of convicted sex offenders). See generally Note, The Constitutionality of Statutes Permitting Increased Sentences for Habitual or Dangerous Criminals, 89 Harv.L.Rev. 356, 359-73 (1975). The justification for the refusal to extend the procedural limitations of the trial to the sentencing hearing was in part historical and in part rested on the belief that modern penological policies, which favor sentencing based on the maximum amount of information about the defendant, would be thwarted by restrictive procedural and evidentiary rules. Williams v. New York, 357 U.S. at 246-50, 69 S.Ct. at 1082-84. The possibilities of delay in criminal administration and retrial of issues not relevant to the determination of guilt are additional considerations underlying the result in these cases. Id. at 250, 69 S.Ct. at 1084. 72 Although the absence of procedural requirements designed to ensure fairness in sentencing has been widely criticized, Note, supra at 360; see, e.g., Kadish, Legal Norm and Discretion in the Police and Sentencing Processes, 75 Harv.L.Rev. 904, 926-29 (1962), such has remained the constitutional rule with respect to sentencing in noncapital cases. E.g., Farrow v. United States, 580 F.2d 1339, 1353-54 n.25 (9th Cir. 1978) (en banc); United States v. Fatico, 579 F.2d 707, 711-12 n.10 (2d Cir. 1978), appeal after remand, 603 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1073, 100 S.Ct. 1018, 62 L.Ed.2d 755 (1980). The constitutional requirements governing capital sentencing, by contrast, have undergone substantial evolution in the wake of Furman v. Georgia. The thrust of Furman and its progeny is that the risk of arbitrary imposition of the death penalty inherent in sentencing determinations made without substantive and procedural standards conflicts with the eighth amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Because the death penalty, unlike other punishments, is permanent and irrevocable, the procedures by which the decision to impose a capital sentence is made bring into play constitutional limitations not present in other sentencing decisions. See Enmund v. Florida, --- U.S. ----, ----, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 3375-76, 73 L.Ed.2d ---- (1982); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. at 605, 98 S.Ct. at 2965; Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 357-58, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 1204, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 303-04, 305, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 2990-91, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 181-88, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2928-32, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. at 286-91, 92 S.Ct. at 2750-53 (Brennan, J., concurring); id. at 306, 92 S.Ct. at 2760 (Stewart, J., concurring); id. at 314-71, 92 S.Ct. at 2764-2793 (Marshall, J., concurring). The Supreme Court has adhered to the traditional concept of individualized sentencing, see Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. at 303-04, 96 S.Ct. at 2990, but has imposed procedural, as well as substantive, limitations on capital sentence decisionmaking. The view, once prevalent, that the procedural requirements applicable to capital sentencing are no more rigorous than those governing noncapital sentencing decisions, see, e.g., McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. at 217, 91 S.Ct. at 1472; Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. at 251-52, 69 S.Ct. at 1085, is no longer valid. Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. at 357-58, 97 S.Ct. at 1204. 73 Although the Court has held capital sentencing proceedings must meet certain procedural requirements, it has not yet delineated the exact scope of constitutional procedural protection to which capital defendants are entitled. See Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. at 358 n.9, 97 S.Ct. at 1204 n.9. Whether the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses extends to capital sentencing proceedings has not been specifically addressed by the Supreme Court and is an issue of first impression in this Circuit. We must therefore decide this question in accord with the general principles articulated by the Supreme Court in its recent death penalty decisions. 74 The focus of the Court's current capital sentencing decisions has been toward minimizing the risk of arbitrary decisionmaking. See, e.g., Eddings v. Oklahoma, --- U.S. ----, ----, 102 S.Ct. 869, 874-76, 71 L.Ed.2d 1, 8-9 (1982); id. --- U.S. at ----, 102 S.Ct. at 878, 71 L.Ed.2d at 13 (O'Connor, J., concurring); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 427-28, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 1764-65, 64 L.Ed.2d 398; Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. at 605, 98 S.Ct. at 2965; Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. at 358, 97 S.Ct. at 1204; Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. at 188, 96 S.Ct. at 2932 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); id. at 189, 96 S.Ct. at 2932 (opinion of White, J., concurring); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. at 248-49 & n.11, 92 S.Ct. at 2731 & n.11 (opinion of Douglas, J.); id. at 309-20, 92 S.Ct. at 2762-67 (opinion of Stewart, J.); id. at 313, 92 S.Ct. at 2764 (opinion of White, J.). Whereas earlier cases had focused on the quantity of information before the sentencing tribunal, recently the Court has shown greater concern for the quality of such information. Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. at 359, 97 S.Ct. at 1205. Thus, it has recognized the defendant's interest both in presenting evidence in his favor, Eddings v. Oklahoma, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982); Lockett v. Ohio, supra, and in being afforded the opportunity to explain or rebut evidence offered against him. Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. at 362, 97 S.Ct. at 1207. Reliability in the factfinding aspect of sentencing has been a cornerstone of these decisions. Id. at 359-60, 362, 97 S.Ct. at 1205; Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. at 305, 96 S.Ct. at 2991. 75 In Gardner v. Florida, supra, the Supreme Court held that a judge's reliance, in imposing the death penalty, on information not disclosed to the defendant or his attorney violated the defendant's rights to due process and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Gardner is premised on the principle that death sentences may not constitutionally be imposed on the basis of information that the capital defendant has been afforded no opportunity to rebut. See id. at 362, 97 S.Ct. at 1206. The holding in Gardner, narrowly viewed, simply prohibits the use of secret information; the Court did not in that case address the scope of the capital defendant's procedural rights in attempting to rebut information that has openly been presented to the sentencing tribunal. In reaching its decision in Gardner, however, the Court emphasized the unacceptability of the risk that some information accepted in confidence may be erroneous, or may be misinterpreted, by the ... sentencing judge. Id. at 359, 97 S.Ct. at 1205. Moreover, the Court expressly recognized the importance of participation by counsel and adversarial debate to eliciting the truth and evaluating the relevance and significance of aggravating and mitigating evidence. Id. at 360, 97 S.Ct. at 1205. The Supreme Court's emphasis in Gardner and other capital sentencing cases on the reliability of the factfinding underlying the decision whether to impose the death penalty convinces us that the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses applies to capital sentencing hearings. The Supreme Court has recognized cross-examination as the 'greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.'  California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 158, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1935, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970) (quoting 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1367 (3d ed. 1940)). 76 The right of cross-examination is more than a desirable rule of trial procedure. It is implicit in the constitutional right of confrontation, and helps assure the accuracy of the truth-determining process. It is, indeed, an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal. Of course, the right to confront and to cross-examine is not absolute and may, in appropriate cases, bow to accomodate other legitimate interests in the criminal process. But its denial or significant diminution calls into question the ultimate  'integrity of the fact-finding process'  and requires that the competing interest be closely examined. 77 Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1045, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) (citations omitted; emphasis added). Where expert witnesses are employed, cross-examination is even more crucial to ensuring accurate fact-finding. Since, as in this case (see note 36 and accompanying text supra ), information submitted by an expert witness generally consists of opinions, cross-examination is necessary not only to test the witness's knowledge and competence in the field to which his testimony relates but also to elicit the facts on which he relied in forming his opinions. 38 78 Finally, we note that the decision of the former Fifth Circuit in Smith v. Estelle, 602 F.2d 694 (5th Cir. 1979), aff'd, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981), buttresses our conclusion that appellant had a constitutional right to cross-examine Dr. Sprehe before the doctor's report could be used in determining sentence. In Smith, we reversed a death sentence that was based in part on the testimony of a psychiatrist whose name the prosecution had intentionally omitted from its witness list. A primary basis for the decision in that case was that the prosecution's failure to disclose its intent to call the doctor prevented the defendant's counsel from conducting effective cross-examination. See id. at 699-701 & n.7. 39 Although the court did not specifically address whether the defendant had a constitutional right to cross-examine the psychiatrist, it concluded that his testimony, not effectively cross-examined by the (defense attorneys,) ( ) carries no assurance of reliability whatever, id. at 701, and hence that its use in sentencing the defendant violated the principles set forth in Gardner v. Florida. The reasoning in Smith clearly supports the view that the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses applies to capital sentencing proceedings, at least where necessary to ensure the reliability of the witnesses' testimony. 79 The Supreme Court's analysis in Gardner indicates that abridgment of fundamental constitutional rights at capital sentencing may be justified in some instances where the state demonstrates a compelling interest. See Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. at 358-61, 97 S.Ct. at 1205-06. See also Smith v. Estelle, 602 F.2d at 701-02. Appellee suggests no cogent reason for denying appellant the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Sprehe, however. Nor does any justification appear in the record, which indicates neither the reason for Sprehe's absence from the hearing nor why the judge chose to proceed with sentencing without his cross-examination. The most likely explanation of the judge's actions was that he wished to avoid further delay in sentencing appellant. As the Supreme Court noted in Gardner in a similar context: 80 In those cases in which the accuracy of a report is contested, the trial judge can avoid delay by disregarding the disputed material. Or if the disputed matter is of critical importance, the time invested in ascertaining the truth would surely be well spent if it makes the difference between life and death. 81 Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. at 359-60, 97 S.Ct. at 1205. 82 The district court did not address the merits of appellant's confrontation clause claim with respect to Dr. Sprehe's report because it found that the trial court did not consider Dr. Sprehe's report in imposing sentence. We are bound by this factual finding unless it is clearly erroneous. Baty v. Balcom, 661 F.2d 391, 394 n.7 (5th Cir. 1981). The district court relied on statements by Judge Burnside, who presided at appellant's trial, to the effect that he did not use Dr. Sprehe's report in imposing sentence. A review of the judge's testimony reveals that he qualified his statement by explaining that he did receive and read Dr. Sprehe's report and considered it for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether it supported the psychiatric mitigating circumstances. 40 After determining that the report did not support such mitigating factors, he did not consider it further. The court's reliance on this testimony is flawed in two respects. First, the district court should not have considered the trial judge's post-decision statements concerning the influence various facts had on his decision. The judge's testimony was not limited to matters of basic, historical fact but directly addressed the effect of the psychiatric evidence on his sentencing decision. Such post-decision statements by a judge or juror about his mental processes in reaching decision may not be used as evidence in a subsequent challenge to the decision. See Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 U.S. 276, 25 S.Ct. 58, 49 L.Ed. 193 (1904); United States v. Crouch, 566 F.2d 1311, 1316 (5th Cir. 1978). Second, even had it been competent evidence, the judge's testimony does not support a finding that he made no use of the report. We therefore hold the district court's finding that the trial court did not consider Sprehe's report was clearly erroneous, and appellant was entitled to cross-examine Dr. Sprehe. 83
84 A defendant's right to be present at all stages of a criminal trial derives from the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1058, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970); Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 579, 4 S.Ct. 202, 204, 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884). 41 This right extends to all hearings that are an essential part of the trial-i.e., to all proceedings at which the defendant's presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge. Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-06, 54 S.Ct. 330, 332, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). Compare Hopt v. Utah, supra (defendant has right to be present at impaneling of jurors); Bartone v. United States, 375 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 21, 11 L.Ed.2d 11 (1963) (court cannot impose sentence in absence of defendant); with United States v. Howell, 514 F.2d 710 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 838, 97 S.Ct. 109, 50 L.Ed.2d 105 (1976) (no right to be present at in camera conference concerning attempted bribe of juror); United States v. Gradsky, 434 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 894, 93 S.Ct. 203, 34 L.Ed.2d 151 (1971) (right to presence does not extend to evidentiary hearing on suppression motion). We have already held that the penalty phase is an integral part of a capital trial for purposes of cross-examination. See text supra at 35-41. For similar reasons, we conclude that the capital defendant's interest in attending his sentencing hearing is as great as his interest in being present at the guilt-determining stage. Cf. Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. at 358, 97 S.Ct. at 1204 (sentencing is critical stage of capital trial). Hence we hold that the right to be present extends to the sentencing as well as the guilt portion of a capital trial. 85 The hearing at which Dr. Coffer testified, however, was not part of the statutory sentencing proceeding but rather was an ad hoc proceeding scheduled by the trial judge after completion of the formal sentencing hearing to allow cross-examination concerning court-ordered reports. The state argues that this post-trial hearing is analogous to a suppression hearing, to which the Fifth Circuit has held the defendant's right of presence does not extend. United States v. Gradsky, supra. Accord United States v. Bell, 464 F.2d 667 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 991, 93 S.Ct. 335, 34 L.Ed.2d 258 (1972). The function of the proceeding and its significance with respect to the trial, rather than the timing or sequence of events, is dispositive of the presence question, however. The psychiatric reports were evidence ordered by the court for its consideration in determining appellant's sentence. The purpose of the hearing was obviously to allow the attorneys to question the authors of those reports about the factual premises on which the reports were based, to probe further into the conclusions drawn by the two doctors, and otherwise to test the accuracy of the reports and their relevance to appellant's sentence. That the judge did not request the reports until after the jury had completed its advisory sentencing does not refute their evidentiary function nor preclude the possibility that they critically affected the sentencing decision. The judge is the ultimate decisionmaker under Florida's capital sentencing scheme, and his role in sentencing is as important as that of the jury-if not more so. See Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. at 251-53, 96 S.Ct. at 2966-67. 42 We therefore hold that the hearing at which Dr. Coffer testified was a critical stage of appellant's trial at which he had a constitutional right to be present. 86 The state argues that even if appellant was entitled to attend the hearing, his attorney waived that right. We reject this argument for two reasons. 87 First, our review of the relevant case law convinces us that presence at a capital trial is nonwaivable. The only precedents directly ruling on the issue are early Supreme Court cases holding that the right to presence in capital cases is so fundamental that the defendant cannot waive it. Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 455, 32 S.Ct. 250, 253, 56 L.Ed. 500 (1912); Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 579, 4 S.Ct. 202, 204, 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884). Accord Near v. Cunningham, 313 F.2d 929, 931 (3d Cir. 1963). 43 More recently, commentators have interpreted dictum in Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970) as authorizing a limited exception to the no-waiver rule for defendants who wilfully disrupt their trials, 3 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 723 (Supp.1980 at 754 n.28); 8B J. Moore, Federal Practice P 43.02(2) at 43-9 (2d ed. 1981). 44 The state does not claim that appellant disrupted or hindered any part of his trial, however; hence such exception is inapplicable to this case. Another contemporary decision-Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 182, 95 S.Ct. 896, 909, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975)-indicates that the Supreme Court may reconsider the issue of waiver of presence in a capital case. Until the Court expressly overrules its decisions in Diaz and Hopt, however, we are bound by the rule established in those cases that a capital defendant's right to presence is nonwaivable. 88 Second, even were we to find sufficient support in the Allen and Drope cases for a departure from the no-waiver rule, we would at least adhere to the knowing-and-voluntary-consent requirement established in the noncapital context. 45 Appellee does not deny that appellant was neither apprised of the hearing with Dr. Coffer nor afforded an opportunity to assert his right to attend; hence appellant did not knowingly or voluntarily waive his right to presence. 46 89 The state's final argument with respect to the Coffer testimony is that any error in denying appellant's right to hear that testimony was harmless. 47 In the district court, the state presented deposition testimony of the trial judge to the effect that he ordered the doctors' reports and testimony solely to determine the existence of mitigating factors. Relying on this testimony, the district court found that appellant could have benefited from this psychiatric evidence only if it had supported a finding of mitigating factors. Even had appellant been present at the hearing and able to aid his attorney's cross-examination of Dr. Coffer, the district court reasoned, the doctor would not likely have completely reversed his position to support the mitigating circumstances claimed by appellant; hence, appellant's absence did not prejudice him. 90 We cannot agree with the district court's approach. 48 We note again that the district court's consideration of the trial judge's testimony concerning his use of the psychiatrists' reports and their effect on his decision was improper. See text supra at 42. Thus, if the district court's finding that the psychiatrists' reports and testimony did not affect the trial judge's assessment of aggravating circumstances was supported solely by the latter's testimony, that finding could not stand. Review of the Coffer report and testimony in conjunction with the four aggravating factors found by the trial judge (see note 50 infra), however, provides independent support for the district court's finding. The only aggravating circumstance found by the trial judge to which Coffer's report and testimony were relevant was that the defendant has the propensity to commit the crime for which he was convicted. This factor was amply substantiated by appellant's own statements to Dr. Crumbley, which were related to the court at the sentencing hearing. Moreover, appellant has presented no evidence indicating that his presence at the Coffer hearing would have enabled him to rebut Coffer's testimony on that issue. Hence, whatever influence the Coffer testimony had on the trial judge's determination of aggravating factors was minimal and, in any event, harmless. We agree with the district court that appellant's absence from the Coffer hearing was significant only insofar as it may have prevented him from assisting his attorney in developing mitigating circumstances. 91 We must therefore address the district court's conclusion that the possibility appellant's absence affected the trial court's findings on mitigating factors was so insubstantial as to render his absence harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Applied in the right-to-presence context, the harmless error rule has been stated as requiring that (w)here there is any reasonable possibility of prejudice from the defendant's absence at any stage of the proceedings, a (judgment) cannot stand. United States v. Stratton, 649 F.2d 1066, 1080 (5th Cir. 1981) (quoting Estes v. United States, 335 F.2d 609, 618-19 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 964, 85 S.Ct. 656, 13 L.Ed.2d 559 (1965)). Thus, whether or not appellant's absence likely prejudiced him is not the standard we must apply; rather, if there is any reasonable possibility appellant's absence and inability to respond to Dr. Coffer's testimony affected the sentencing decision, we will not engage in speculation as to the probability that his presence would have made a difference. Cf. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 317, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974) (where trial judge violated accused's right to confrontation by preventing defense from impeaching credibility of prosecution witness, Court would not speculate whether trier of fact would have accepted defense's impeachment theory). 49 The district court concluded appellant's absence was harmless because appellant did not demonstrate that, had he been present and able to assist his attorney at the hearing, he would have been able to effectuate a complete reversal of Coffer's opinion concerning the psychiatric mitigating factors. The court found no evidence that such would have been the case. Having reviewed the record, we simply cannot agree. Appellant has shown that during the period when he was examined by Drs. Coffer and Sprehe he was receiving anti-psychotic medication and that neither his attorney nor the doctors were aware of that fact. Dr. Coffer's evaluation of appellant's mental state at the time of the offense was based in part on his observation that, at the time of the examination, appellant exhibited no psychotic tendencies. The doctor's opinion might have differed had he known appellant was under medication. Appellant has presented additional information, such as repeated suicide attempts, of which his attorney and the doctors were not informed at the time of the sentencing hearing. It is possible that none of these facts would have changed Dr. Coffer's opinion; however, we cannot with confidence eliminate the very reasonable possibility that they would have had such effect. We therefore conclude that the trial court's violation of appellant's right to presence was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 92