Opinion ID: 2060561
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Bench conferences.

Text: The defendant contends his right to be present at trial was violated by numerous bench conferences between the attorneys and the judge. He relies on the early Wisconsin case of French v. State. [25] French, however, is not on point. In that case, the record failed to show the defendant's presence at the trial, the rendering of the verdict, and the pronouncement of sentence. No such absence at these critical stages is shown in this case. In Ramer v. State [26] this court held that the defendant did not have a constitutional right to be present at every conference between attorneys and the court. In that case, a witness asked that he not be called. His reasons were heard by the court and attorneys in chambers without the defendant's presence. Thereafter the court ruled the witness did not enjoy a privilege, but defense counsel nevertheless excused him. Citing French, Ramer contended his right to be present was violated. Rejecting this argument, this court noted: ... When a conference in chambers deals solely with a question of law or preliminary matters of procedure, it has been held not to constitute a part of the trial in the constitutional sense. [27] Viewing the timing of the bench conference and the context in which they were conducted, we are satisfied that a fair trial was not thwarted by Wilson's absence. Most of these involved questions of law following objections [28] or matters of procedure. [29] Many were called at the behest of defense counsel. [30] Often, the court explained what took place at the bench conference. [31] Just as it would be impractical to consult with a defendant on every tactical move, as was noted in State v. Harper, [32] so would it be highly impractical to march the defendant up to the bench every time counsel objected to evidence and wished to discuss the reasons for the objection with the court outside the presence of the jury.