Opinion ID: 72471
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sixth Amendment/Confrontation Clause

Text: The Supreme Court on numerous occasions has referred to a defendant’s Confrontation Clause right to be present as a “trial right,” see Stincer, 482 U.S. at 738 n.9, 107 S. Ct. at 2663 n.9 (collecting cases), recognizing that the right is designed to promote reliability at trial, see, e.g., id. at 737, 107 S. Ct. at 2663. While the evidentiary hearing may have resulted in a new trial for Boyd, nothing said or done at the evidentiary hearing could have affected the reliability of Boyd’s original trial, which had been concluded. The evidentiary hearing had no “direct relationship with [Boyd’s] trial,” id. at 740, 107 S. Ct. at 2664, and his exclusion from the hearing did not “interfere[] with his opportunity for effective cross-examination” of the trial witnesses, see id. As such, Boyd’s exclusion from the hearing did not violate his Confrontation Clause right to be present.