Opinion ID: 2975974
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Right to be Present During Playback

Text: A criminal defendant has a fundamental right to be present at all critical stages of trial. See Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 117 (1983). Shohatee asserts that this right was violated when he was denied the opportunity to be present during playback of the witnesses’ testimony. Even assuming that playback is a critical stage of the proceedings, Shohatee was not denied the right to be present. Through his counsel, Shohatee agreed to the procedure and was present in court when the judge made her decision to allow the jury to hear the tapes without the presence of counsel. Shohatee’s counsel at first objected to the playback out of concern that the jury would only listen to parts of the testimony, but after the judge explained that the jury was to hear the whole of each witness’s testimony uninterrupted, his counsel agreed. This constitutes a waiver of any procedural objection. United States v. Riddle, 249 F.3d 529, 534 (6th Cir. 2001). Shohatee argues that while he was present at the hearing when the judge explained the playback procedures, he was unaware of his right to be present and therefore cannot be held to have No. 06-1808 Shohatee v. Jackson Page 6 waived it. However, as the district court noted, “petitioner neither alleges nor establishes that the waiver of the right to be present (or to have counsel present) was involuntary or unknowing.” An examination of Shohatee’s brief to the district court confirms that he did not raise any issue as to involuntary waiver. Thus we will not consider this issue on appeal. Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556 (1941). Accordingly, the Michigan courts did not unreasonably apply federal law when they held that Shohatee had waived any objections to the jury playback procedures.