Opinion ID: 2354297
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: In-chambers voir dire.

Text: On June 26, 2000, during the course of the general voir dire, three jurors indicated that they had prior knowledge of the case and defense counsel requested that they be further questioned in chambers so as not to contaminate the other jurors with their information. When the judge began arrangements for Appellant to be escorted into chambers, defense counsel advised, Judge, I don't think he [indicating Appellant] needs to be back there. Thus, defense counsel expressly waived Appellant's presence during the ensuing questioning of these jurors in chambers. Riddle, supra, at 535; Caudill, supra, at 651. Shortly after the conclusion of this in-chambers hearing, the trial judge questioned another prospective juror in chambers while Appellant remained in the courtroom. This juror asserted that she had previously been the victim of a crime and indicated that her experience would affect her ability to be impartial in this case. Defense counsel's motion to excuse her for cause was sustained. Technically, defense counsel did not repeat the previous waiver of Appellant's presence at this in-chambers hearing. However, his absence was clearly harmless since the juror was adverse to Appellant's cause and was excused on motion of defense counsel. No more could have been accomplished had Appellant been present. Riddle, supra, at 535; Gibbs, supra, at 437; Sanders, 89 S.W.3d at 388-89. Nor did Appellant's absence from this hearing deny him due process of law. So far as the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned, the presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.  Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 107-08, 54 S.Ct. 330, 333, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934) (emphasis added), overruled on other grounds by Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964). See also See v. Commonwealth, Ky., 746 S.W.2d 401, 402-03 (1988) (exclusion of defendant from witness competency hearing did not violate rights under Kentucky Constitution). Because Appellant's presence would have contributed nothing to the result, a fair and just hearing was not thwarted by his absence.