Opinion ID: 3050012
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant’s Absence From the Sentencing Phase

Text: As the majority opinion describes, ante, at 11633-35, Mitchell unequivocally stated that he did not wish to attend the sentencing phase of the proceedings. The district judge strongly urged him to exercise his right to be present on several occasions, and carefully explained the reasons why he 11674 UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL should do so. Ultimately, with considerable misgivings, she reluctantly allowed him to be absent. Mitchell now argues that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require a capital defendant’s presence during sentencing proceedings and that the district court erred in permitting him to waive his presence. He is correct, and notwithstanding the majority’s difficulty with the issue, the error is plain. Rule 43(a)(3) provides that a defendant must be present at sentencing. Although a non-capital defendant may waive this right, a capital defendant may not.12 The majority makes the perplexing assertion that Rule 43(a)(3) does not apply because the sentencing phase of a capital trial is not part of “sentencing.” See ante, at 11639. This contradicts both the common understanding of the nature of the sentencing phase and the rule’s purposes in requiring a capital defendant’s presence at sentencing, as well as the plain meaning of the rule itself. In a capital trial, the term sentencing phase is synonymous with the term penalty phase. The two terms are used interchangeably, along with the statutory term sentencing hearing. See, e.g., Rice v. Wood, 77 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (observing that a capital defendant’s trial “was bifurcated into separate guilt and sentencing phases, with the same jury sitting in both”). Cf. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) (noting that “penalty phase” is “[a]lso termed sentencing phase”). Indeed, the Federal Death Penalty Act specifi12 Rule 43(a)(3) states “Unless this rule . . . provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at . . . sentencing.” The rule is limited by 43(c)(1)(B), which permits waiver of that provision “in a noncapital case, when the defendant is voluntarily absent during sentencing.” As the majority concedes, Rule 43(c)(1)(B) by negative implication does not permit a capital defendant to waive his presence during sentencing by being voluntarily absent. Because Rule 43(c)(1)(B) does not apply to capital defendants, and the facts do not support any of the other reasons for waiver, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(c)(1)(A) and (B), we are presented with a straightforward question about the meaning of “sentencing” as the term is used in Rule 43(a)(3). UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL 11675 cally provides that if a defendant is found guilty of a death eligible offense, the trial judge “shall conduct a separate sen- tencing hearing to determine the punishment to be imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(b) (emphasis added). It is at the sentencing hearing (a.k.a. the sentencing phase or the penalty phase) that the evidence is adduced, the arguments are made by counsel, the defendant has the opportunity to address the jury — the body that determines what his punishment — and the ultimate decision is made as to the defendant’s sentence. The conclusion that “sentencing” includes the sentencing hearing is also required by an examination of the reasons for requiring a defendant’s presence at sentencing. In non-capital cases, the requirement that a defendant be present at sentencing, inter alia, “serves the defendant’s interest by facilitating allocution . . . .” United States v. Curtis, 523 F.2d 1134, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1975). It is at sentencing that the defendant has “the opportunity to address any issues relevant to his sentence.” United States v. Robinson, 390 F.3d 853, 887 (6th Cir. 2004). Additionally, the mere presence of the defendant in the courtroom during sentencing proceedings exerts a psychological influence on the jury. See, e.g., United States v. Canady, 126 F.3d 352, 362 (2d Cir. 1997) (“In the jury context, several courts, in rejecting the argument that the defendant’s presence is useless, have pointed to the fact that the defendant’s mere presence exerts a “psychological influence upon the jury.” (quoting United States v. Santiago, 977 F.2d 517, 523 n.6 (10th Cir. 1992)). In a federal capital case, the reasons for requiring a defendant’s presence at sentencing are applicable primarily to the sentencing hearing rather than to the formal pronouncement of sentence by the judge, although the defendant’s presence is required at both.13 As noted, it is during the sentencing phase of the proceedings — the sentencing hearing — that a 13 In contrast, in a non-capital case the hearing regarding the sentence and the pronouncement of the sentence occur at a single proceeding. 11676 UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL capital defendant has the opportunity to present any mitigating evidence, and to ask the jury — the body deciding on his sentence — for mercy. Additionally, the psychological influence of the defendant’s presence on the jury is most significant during the time when it is hearing the argument as to whether he should live or die and when it is receiving the information that serves as the basis for its decision. Finally, to the extent that a defendant’s presence legitimizes a sentence, this legitimizing function is most critical in the sentencing phase, when the State argues that there is cause to exercise the full measure of its power by taking the life of a defendant and the defendant seeks the alternative of life imprisonment. In short, the process of determining a capital defendant’s sentence occurs during the sentencing or penalty phase. The Federal Death Penalty Act provides that at the conclusion of this phase, the jury “shall recommend whether the defendant should be sentenced to death, to life imprisonment without possibility of release or some other lesser sentence.” 18 U.S.C. 3593(e). If the jury recommends death and, the judge is obligated to impose that sentence and has no discretion to impose a lesser penalty. See 18 U.S.C. 3594 (“Upon a recommendation under section 3593(e) that the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without possibility of release, the court shall sentence the defendant accordingly.”). Thus, although Mitchell was present when the jury returned its verdict and, months later, when the judge entered the death sentence, he was no more than a passive audience on these occasions. The decision-making process was over. The time when Mitchell’s presence was important, when he could have been an active participant in the sentencing proceedings and influenced the determination as to his sentence, was during the sentencing or penalty phase. Any remarks he may have been permitted to make to the judge subsequent to the jury’s decision were of no legal or practical consequence. His absence during the sentencing hearing violated the plain language as well as the purposes of Rule 43(a).14 14 The majority argues that Fed R. Crim. P. 35(c), which defines the word “sentencing” as “the oral announcement of the sentence,” should UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL 11677 There is little room for doubt that Rule 43(a)(3)’s requirement that a defendant be present at sentencing applies to the sentencing or penalty phase of a capital trial: to the sentencing hearing. Because Rule 43(a) states that only a noncapital defendant may waive his presence during sentencing, the district court erred in allowing Mitchell to be voluntarily absent during the penalty phase. Furthermore, this error is a structural error that requires reversal even without a specific showing of prejudice. Although we generally consider structural error within the context of constitutional errors, “numerous errors are subject to automatic reversal even though they do not violate constitutional rights.” United States v. Annigoni, 96 F.3d 1132, 1144 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). See, e.g., Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 874-76 (1989) (holding defendant did not need to show prejudice resulting from a magistrate supervising voir dire in violation of the Federal Magistrate’s Act because the defendant’s right “to have all govern the interpretation of Rule 43. Rule 35(c) specifically states that the definition applies to the term sentencing “[a]s used in this rule.” Id. (emphasis added). Even aside from that express limitation, there is no reason to believe that the definition should carry over to other rules. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that it should be limited to Rule 35, because that rule contains several provisions that set deadlines based on the date of sentencing. Rule 35(c) simply clarifies how those deadlines should be calculated. Rule 43 serves a completely different purpose. The fact that it explains in one section that “sentence correction” is a proceeding under Rule 35 is of no relevance whatsoever to the question before us. The majority also relies on the legislative history of the amendments to Rule 43. I find this history inconclusive. Although the earlier version allowed a defendant in a noncapital case to be absent from the “imposition of sentence” while the current version allows a noncapital defendant to be absent from “sentencing,” there is no practical difference between the terms as applied to a noncapital defendant. There is one sentencing proceeding in noncapital cases and it is at that proceeding that imposition of the sentence occurs. The word “sentencing” and the term “sentencing proceeding” have far broader meanings with respect to a capital defendant. A negative implication under such circumstances is also broader. Thus, general committee notes, which are ambiguous as applied, are hardly conclusive of critical questions that otherwise would be resolved by looking to the plain meaning or ordinary construction of the terms in question. 11678 UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL critical stages of a criminal trial conducted by a person with jurisdiction to preside” is “among the basic fair trial rights that can never be treated as harmless”). In determining whether an error requires automatic reversal, we look at whether the error is a “structural defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991). Here, Mitchell’s absence throughout the penalty phase affected the very nature of the proceedings. The absence of a defendant when his presence is required is as fundamental as the absence of his lawyer, see Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963), or even of the judge. See Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 535 (1927). The defendant’s presence is required so that he may assist his counsel and plead for mercy from the jury. Additionally, his presence could well have significantly affected the course of the proceedings, the presentation of the mitigating and aggravating evidence. In contrast to cases in which the defendant was absent only during the pronouncement of the verdict, see, e.g., Rice v. Wood, 77 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2002), a conversation between a judge and a juror, see, e.g., Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 119 (1983), or the readback of testimony, see, e.g., Hegler v. Borg, 50 F.3d 1472, 1474-75 (9th Cir. 1995), a capital defendant has an “active role to play” during the penalty phase of his trial. Cf. Rice, 77 F.3d at 1142. Because Mitchell’s absence was an error that permeated the entire penalty phase, it may not be “quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented . . . .” Fulimante, 499 U.S. at 308. It is impossible to determine from a review of a record whether the penalty imposed would have been different if an absent defendant had been present during the sentencing phrase. I would reverse the death sentence on the basis of the court’s fundamental error in allowing Mitchell to be absent from the sentencing hearing. See Annigoni, 96 F.3d at 1147 (holding that a violation of Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, regarding peremptory challenges, is an UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL 11679 error requiring automatic reversal). In the alternative, I will consider the Rule 43 error below as if it were mere trial error, in which case it would constitute part of the cumulative error analysis. See section D at pp. 11685.