Opinion ID: 1469394
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Standard by Which the Constitutionality of the Waiver is to be Measured

Text: While Rule 43 speaks of a defendant's voluntary absence we must bear in mind that we are concerned with a waiver of the right of confrontation guaranteed by the sixth amendment of the Constitution of the United States and by article I, § 6 of our own Constitution. Such a waiver must be an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938). Recently, the Court reaffirmed the necessity of an application of this standard to a defendant's decision to forego those rights constitutionally guaranteed to assure a fair criminal trial and to protect the reliability of the truth-determining process. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 236, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2052, 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 868 (1973). We have no doubt that a defendant's opportunity to confront his accusers and assist his counsel concerning evidentiary facts bears heavily upon the reliability of the truth determining process. State v. Pullen, Me., 266 A.2d 222 (1970). The defendant's waiver of presence at trial must then be not only a voluntary but also a knowing waiver. The defendant now argues that to meet this standard, a presiding Justice must be able to find that a departing defendant was fully aware not only of his right to be present at his trial but also that if he absented himself his trial might continue in his absence and that he might thus never be able to avail himself of the opportunity to confront witnesses who appear against him and to assist his counsel in the evidentiary problems of trial. This was the holding of United States v. McPherson, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 192, 195, 421 F.2d 1127, 1130 (1969) cited by the defendant, but which was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous per curiam opinion in Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17, 94 S.Ct. 194, 38 L.Ed.2d 174 (1973). Although the Court's reasoning in Taylor is not fully explained, the opinion points out, significantly, that the right at issue is the right to be present. We understand the Court to be distinguishing between one's right to be present at trial and the right to absent oneself from trial. See Dissenting opinion of Judge Tamm in United States v. McPherson, supra. The constitutional right to be present is designed to affect the State's treatment of the accused by ensuring that it provides him with the opportunity to be present. Once that opportunity is provided the accused has no constitutional right to unilaterally absent himself from his trial. Cureton v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 396 F.2d 671, 673 (1968); See Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4, 72 S.Ct. 1, 3, 96 L.Ed. 3, 6 (1951). In this respect, the right to be present at trial must be distinguished from those constitutional rights which offer alternative choices such as the fifth amendment right to silence (one is free to confess or to remain silent) or the fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (one may decide to permit the search or one may refuse it). The constitution does not require that he be made aware of the consequences of a choice to absent himself during his trial as he has no constitutional right to make such a choice. While the waiver concept furnishes a fair standard for testing the public right to continue with the trial in a defendant's absence, we are really talking about intentional conduct of a defendant, unsanctioned constitutionally, which cannot be permitted to frustrate the orderly determination of guilt or innocence. The voluntariness of an accused's waiver of a constitutional right is a flexible concept and may be determined from the totality of all the circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. at 227, 93 S.Ct. at 2048, 36 L.Ed. at 863. It may be inferred from a defendant's conduct. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970). Here, the defendant, a man of 33, with a record of felony convictions which were known to the readers of these opinions (which no doubt included this presiding Justice), had spent the morning attending his trial and had just heard his youthful companion in crime testify for the State, an occurrence which probably convinced him of the hopelessness of his situation. Immediately following this, the defendant, had left the courthouse at trial recess, saying that he was going to get a cup of coffee. An hour and ten minutes later he had not returned and his attorney was unable to find him. Certainly, the Justice was entitled to concludefor the purposes of constitution of the trialthat the defendant knew he was entitled to be present at his trial and that his departure was a voluntary one, made in hopes of avoiding an unfavorable verdict. The defendant's appearance before the Justice prior to sentence two weeks later, after his apprehension, only supported the correctness of the Justice's preliminary conclusion. His explanation of his conduct was . . . I guess I got scared and took off is all.