Opinion ID: 2582516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Appellant's exclusion from in camera proceedings

Text: Gallego complains that he was not present at a number of in camera proceedings. Specifically, he contends that his right to be present at the empaneling of the jury was violated because several prospective jurors were excused in such proceedings. We conclude that no error occurred. Gallego cites two decisions by the United States Supreme Court for authority that his right to be present was violated, but these cases are distinguishable because they both involved the defendants' absence when challenges to prospective jurors were being made and decided. [39] Here, by contrast, the prospective jurors were dismissed by the stipulation of both counsel for reasons ranging from knowledge of the case to ill health. This court has explained that a defendant does not have an unlimited right to be present at every proceeding. The right to be present is rooted in the Confrontation Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution. The confrontation aspect arises when the proceeding involves the presentation of evidence. The due process aspect has been recognized only to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by the defendant's absence. The right to be present is subject to harmless error analysis. The defendant must show that he was prejudiced by the absence. [40] No evidence presented at the in camera proceedings implicated Gallego's confrontation right. He has not shown how his absence prejudiced him in any way, and we conclude that the proceedings were fair and just despite his absence.