Opinion ID: 198984
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Restriction on Sidebar Participation During Voir Dire

Text: 58 During voir dire, the trial judge restricted participation by defense counsel in sidebar conferences to two of you at the most. Although counsel for Ortiz-Figueroa suggested that all attorneys participate by using headphones, trial counsel for appellants did not object to the limitation. Rios-Rios now argues that the restrictions on sidebar participation during voir dire violated his right to be present at every critical stage of the trial. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(a). We disagree. 59 This argument is controlled by United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 527 (1985). There, the Supreme Court held: 60 The mere occurrence of an ex parte conversation between a trial judge and a juror does not constitute a deprivation of any constitutional right. The defense has no constitutional right to be present at every interaction between a judge and a juror, nor is there a constitutional right to have a court reporter transcribe every such communication. 61 Id. at 526 (quoting Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 125-26 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring)). In addition, the Court stated: 62 If a defendant is entitled under Rule 43 to attend certain stages of the trial which do not take place in open court, the defendant or his counsel must assert that right at the time; they may not claim it for the first time on appeal from a sentence entered on a jury's verdict of guilty. 63 Id. at 529. 64 In this case, Rios-Rios was restricted from full participation in a limited number of sidebar conferences that occurred during voir dire; in all other aspects, appellant was present at, and fully participated in, his trial. In addition, trial counsel did not object to the restriction, and counsel subsequently exercised cause and peremptory challenges without objecting that there was not enough information to make those decisions. On these facts, we see no Rule 43 violation. 65