Opinion ID: 6320007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Presence During Charge Conference

Text: Alqsous complains that the jury charge conference was conducted with defense counsel but without the presence of the defendant himself. The record reflects that the district court began discussions concerning the jury instructions on a Friday afternoon, continued work over the weekend, and concluded with changes made as late as the following Monday morning. 18Notably, because this claim was not raised in a pretrial motion challenging the indictment, our review would be for plain error. See Davis, 306 F.3d at 416-17. Nos. 19-3372/3549/3573/20-3160 United States v. Hills, et al. Page 27 Objections to the final instructions were addressed on the record, but no objection was made to Alqsous’s absence from the charge conference then or at any time during or after trial.19 “[T]he right to be present at the critical stages of trial is rooted in the Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment) and the Confrontation Clause (Sixth Amendment), and has been codified in Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” United States v. Taylor, 489 F. App’x 34, 43 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526-27 (1985)). When, as here, a defendant is not actually confronting witnesses or evidence against him, a defendant has a due process right to be present “when ‘his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.’” United States v. Henderson, 626 F.3d 326, 343 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Alqsous argues that important legal issues were discussed, but does not suggest how his absence could have detracted from his defense since he was represented by counsel during those discussions. See, e.g., United States v. Beierle, 810 F.3d 1193, 1198-99 (10th Cir. 2016) (finding no due process right to attend jury instruction conference). Nor does Rule 43 confer a right to attend a conference between the court and counsel concerning the legal matter of the instructions to be given to the jury. Rule 43 provides a right to be present at every stage of the trial, but a defendant need not be present when a “proceeding involves only a conference or hearing on a question of law.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 43(a), (b)(3). Every other circuit to address the issue has held that a jury instruction conference comes within that exception. See United States v. Thornton, 609 F.3d 373, 376 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing cases); see also Taylor, 489 F. App’x at 44-45. Alqsous has not demonstrated that the district court erred, much less plainly erred, by conducting a jury charge conference with counsel but without the defendant. See United States v. Romero, 282 F.3d 683, 689-90 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding a defendant has no constitutional or statutory right to attend a conference between the court and counsel to discuss jury instructions). Moreover, the right to be present under Rule 43 is waived if not affirmatively asserted. Gagnon, 470 U.S. at 528; see also United States v. McCoy, 8 F.3d 495, 497 (7th Cir. 1993). 19A minute entry reflects that a five hour and fifteen minute conference regarding jury instructions was held with counsel in chambers on Friday, July 20, 2018. Nos. 19-3372/3549/3573/20-3160 United States v. Hills, et al. Page 28