Opinion ID: 680601
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Presence of Witness During Trial

Text: 5 Although Smith's counsel failed to explicitly object to the presence of Ekker during the trial, we address this issue in light of Smith's pro se status on appeal. We review for abuse of discretion a district court's decision not to exclude a witness. Breneman v. Kennecott Corp., 799 F.2d 470, 473 (9th Cir.1986). 6 Fed.R.Evid. 615 provides: At the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses.... This rule does not authorize exclusion of ... an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney.... 7 Hughes called Ekker, Smith's former supervisor, as a trial witness and also designated her as its only representative at trial. Because Ekker was Hughes' representative, Rule 615 proscribed her exclusion from the trial during the testimony of Smith's witnesses. See United States v. Thompson, 835 F.2d 219, 223 (9th Cir.1987). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting Ekker to be present throughout the trial. See id. at 223. AFFIRMED