Opinion ID: 361134
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The fourth expulsion.

Text: 49 On the morning of March 14 the defendant was brought back to determine if he wished to testify. He was not readmitted for the purpose of self-representation. Assurances of good behavior were neither sought nor extended. When the defendant did not respond directly to its repeated inquiries, Tr. Mar. 14, pp. 2-6, the court ordered that he be permanently removed until sentencing, Id., pp. 6-8, stating that its order was based on the defendant's Past conduct, Id., pp. 7, 8. Thus, properly considered, the fourth expulsion was but an extension of the third. The error of the previous day was not only continued, but enhanced.B. Was the exclusion harmless error? 50 1. Contribution to the verdict. 51 Appellee argues that even if the later exclusions were error, the error was harmless. He points out first that appellant was not left unrepresented. Standby counsel stepped in to cross-examine the state's witnesses and to present a closing argument. The presence of counsel alone at trial can never be harmless Per se, however, Bustamonte, supra, 456 F.2d at 275. 52 Appellee next argues that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming by the time appellant was removed. This contention mistakes the evidence necessary to withstand an acquittal motion for the evidence necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 53 As a result of his later removals, appellant missed part or all of the testimony of Dr. Walker, the expert he had called on the effects of tear gas; Arthur Gomes, who was to testify on the qualifications and experience of the prison staff; Dale Brandfast, who testified regarding the absence of the task force of prison guards who would normally have handled the October 8 disturbance; and Charles Teeples, a medical assistant at the prison who testified to the condition of the defendants directly following the incident. He was also not present during closing argument, instruction of the jury, the proof of his prior conviction, 7 and the return of verdict. 54 The statements of these witnesses went to the heart of two defensive theories: first, that the use of tear gas prevented any reconstruction of events free of reasonable doubt; second, that the use of unreasonable force by the guards warranted the prisoners in defending themselves. By his absence the defendant was prevented from assisting in the development of these theories. Likewise he could not be seen by the witnesses who testified against him, or by the jurors who decided his fate. He could not assist in preparation for the presentation of a closing argument. The combination of these circumstances leaves, in our mind, a reasonable doubt that appellant's exclusion contributed to the guilty verdict obtained. Therefore, we find the constitutional error complained of was not harmless. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 55 2. Denial of due process. 56 There is a second separate ground for our decision. The very absence of an accused, without good reason from so many stages of his trial calls for reversal. The defendant in this case could not hear the testimony of several witnesses. He could not observe the closing arguments of counsel, the jury instructions, of the trial to the court on the issue of his previous convictions. Most critically, he was forced to learn second-hand whether the jury had found him guilty or not. 8 The right of presence is extended not only to protect the integrity and reliability of the trial mechanism. As has been stated by the Fourth Circuit, the right of presence 57 (assures) nondisruptive defendants the opportunity to observe and, it is to be hoped, to understand all stages of the trial not involving purely legal matters generally incomprehensible to the layman, in order to prevent the loss of confidence in courts as instruments of justice which secret trials would engender. 58 United States v. Gregorio, 497 F.2d 1253, 1258 and n. 10, (4th Cir. 1974). Those events, then, infringe on a societal interest in seeing that the forms of trial are preserved, that due process is not entirely a matter of contingencies. The law requires that the defendant be present at his trial. We reverse to ensure that neither (life nor liberty) is taken except in the mode prescribed by law. Bustamonte, supra, 456 F.2d 274, Citing Hopt, supra, 110 U.S. at 579, 4 S.Ct. 202.