Opinion ID: 153666
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Mr. Veatch's Removal from the Courtroom During Sentencing

Text: 82 Defendant Veatch next claims the court unconstitutionally removed him from the courtroom during sentencing. This issue constitutes a mixed question of law and fact which we review de novo. United States v. Gomez, 67 F.3d 1515, 1528 (10th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 737 (1996). A defendant has a right to be present at all critical stages of a criminal proceeding, including sentencing. Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(a); see United States v. Behrens, 375 U.S. 162, 165-66 (1963). 83 During sentencing, the court was speaking with Mr. Coyle, who appeared as counsel for Mr. Veatch for purposes of sentencing, about Mr. Veatch's financial situation. During the conversation, Mr. Veatch interrupted, and the following colloquy occurred: 84 The Defendant: Oh, please. Would you mind getting me out of here. 85 The Marshal: Sit down. 86 The Court: Please remove Mr. Veatch. Mr. Veatch, Mr. Veatch, do you wish to be present at sentencing? 87 The Defendant: I don't want to listen to any more of your crap, Judge. 88 The Court: Remove Mr. Veatch from the courtroom. He may be returned to the holdover. You will be sentenced in your absence, Mr. Veatch. 89 The Defendant: No, I won't. Not by a legitimate judge but by a bribe-taking [expletive deleted]. 90 (R., Veatch Sentencing Tr. at 13-14 (Jan. 6, 1995)). 91 Defendant asserts that his removal was unconstitutional because he was not adequately warned by the district court that further outbursts would lead to his immediate removal from the sentencing hearing. Appellant Veatch's Br. at 28. Defendant correctly states that a defendant may waive his right to be present if he persists in disruptive conduct after being warned by the court that such conduct will result in his removal. Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(b)(3); Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343 (1970). This case, however, does not involve removal after repeated disruptive conduct--although it is indisputable that Mr. Veatch was being disruptive in the courtroom. Rather, Mr. Veatch made an explicit request to leave the courtroom: Would you mind getting me out of here. The court verified Mr. Veatch's intent to be absent during sentencing by asking: Mr. Veatch, do you wish to be present at sentencing? Mr. Veatch responded that he did not want to be present by saying: I don't want to listen to any more of your crap, Judge. Under the circumstances, the Defendant was not forcefully removed; rather, Mr. Veatch knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present during his sentencing hearing. 92