Opinion ID: 216505
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the District Court Erred by Conducting the Sentencing Hearing by Video Conference.

Text: The district court erred by conducting the sentencing hearing by video conference with Williams not physically present in the courtroom. With certain limited exceptions not applicable here, [1] Rule 43(a) requires that a criminal defendant be present at certain stages of his or her proceedings, including sentencing. Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(a)(3). This requirement comports with the general view adopted by our sister circuits that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to be present at sentencing. See United States v. DeMott, 513 F.3d 55, 58 (2d Cir.2008); United States v. Sepulveda-Contreras, 466 F.3d 166, 169 (1st Cir.2006); United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Agostino, 132 F.3d 1183, 1199 n. 7 (7th Cir.1997). Three different courts of appeal have addressed whether electronic presence by video conference at sentencing satisfies the requirements of Rule 43(a), and all have concluded that it does not. See United States v. Torres-Palma, 290 F.3d 1244, 1248 (10th Cir.2002); United States v. Lawrence, 248 F.3d 300, 304 (4th Cir.2001); United States v. Navarro, 169 F.3d 228, 239 (5th Cir.1999). Consistent with the results reached by our sister circuits, we agree that a district court may not conduct a sentencing hearing by video conference. The text of Rule 43 does not allow video conferencing. The structure of the Rule does not support it. As our sister circuits have recognized, and anyone who has used video conferencing software is aware, virtual reality is rarely a substitute for actual presence. Lawrence, 248 F.3d at 303. While an individual may determine that the benefits of not having to travel outweigh the costs of having a meeting by video conference, we do not, and cannot, perform such a balancing with a criminal defendant's rights. Until such time as the drafters of the Rule instruct us otherwise, district courts may not conduct sentencing hearings by video conference. Although the United States makes much of the fact that the video conferencing worked well and the parties were able to clearly see and hear each other, that argument misses the mark. The quality of the video conference connection is irrelevant in this situation. Rule 43 requires that the defendant be present, which simply cannot be satisfied by anything less than physical presence in the courtroom. Being physically present in the same room with another has certain intangible and difficult to articulate effects that are wholly absent when communicating by video conference. As written, the Rule reflects a firm judgment in favor of physical presence and does not permit the use of video conferencing as a substitute. The United States argues that the error was harmless, but has failed to establish that Williams would not have received a lower sentence had he been physically present at sentencing. In harmless-error analysis, the United States bears the burden and must demonstrate to the Court with certainty that the error at sentencing did not cause the defendant to receive a more severe sentence. United States v. Gillis, 592 F.3d 696, 699 (6th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Harmless-error analysis in this context is, as the Tenth Circuit recognized in rejecting such an argument, just a different angle on the arguments in favor of video conferencing because of its efficiency. See Torres-Palma, 290 F.3d at 1248; accord United States v. Thompson, 599 F.3d 595, 601 (7th Cir.2010) (rejecting harmless-error argument where the district court violated Rule 43 by conducting a supervised-release revocation hearing by video conference because there is no way to know what the judge would have done had he been present . . . and face-to-face with [the defendant]). Although the United States is correct that Williams might have received the exact same sentence if he had been physically present, it has offered nothing to convince us that he certainly would have and, therefore, failed to meet its burden. District courts have broad discretion in selecting a sufficient sentence for each individual defendant. In light of this discretion, without any argument from the United States based on the unique facts of this case, we cannot now substitute our judgment for that of the district court and speculate as to what sentence Williams might have received had he been physically present. Therefore, because the United States did not carry its burden to establish that the error was harmless, and the district court erred by conducting the sentencing by video conference, we vacate Williams's sentence and remand for resentencing.