Document: 470 U.S. 522 105 S.Ct. 1482 84 L.Ed.2d 486 UNITED STATESv.Robert Paul GAGNON et al. No. 84-690. March 18, 1985. Rehearing Denied May 13, See 471 1112, 2350. PER CURIAM. 1 The four respondents were indicted on various counts and tried together in Federal District Court for participation a large-scale cocaine distribution conspiracy. During the afternoon recess first day of trial Judge was discussing matters law open court with respondents, their respective counsel, Assistant United States Attorney, outside presence jury. bailiff entered courtroom informed judge that one jurors, Garold Graham, had expressed concern because he noticed respondent Gagnon sketching portraits Gagnon's attorney admitted been jury members during trial. ordered practice cease immediately. lawyer suggested question juror to ascertain whether prejudiced against Gagnon. then stated, still each his counsel: "I will talk my chambers make determination. We'll stand at recess." No objections made by any no requested be present discussion chambers. 2 went into called Graham. also bring counsel There judge, company discussed juror. stated: 3 ". . I just thought perhaps seriousness trial, of—whichever way deliberations go, it kind of—it upset me, because—of what could happen afterwards." 4 explained an artist, meant harm, sketchings confiscated. assured would sketch more. Graham stated another seen comment him about but else seemed have noticed, other jurors matter. elicited from willingness continue as impartial asked two questions satisfied. camera meeting broke up, resumed. A transcript proceeding available all parties; time did mention or object interview motions disqualify who witnessed sketching, nor request cautionary instructions given After returned guilty verdicts post-trial concerning incident filed Court. 5 On consolidated appeal, however, claimed Court's violated respondents' Sixth Amendment rights under Rule Criminal Procedure 431 stages divided panel Appeals Ninth Circuit reversed convictions holding 43 Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment. 721 F.2d 672 (1983). 6 held due process personally discussion, these substantial enough plain error appeal 52(b), notwithstanding failure preserve issue raising Although only worried conduct, juror's potential prejudice might harm they joint actors charged 7 find nothing record "conclusively determine" waived rights. found "no indication defendants expressly impliedly implicated absent conference." F.2d, 677. That objection conference without was, court, irrelevant voluntary absence 43. Because waiver right present, fortiori not conclude intentional knowing relinquishment present. Ibid., citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). Finally, harmless-error rule excuse errors committed 8 We think clear "[T]he mere occurrence ex parte conversation between does constitute deprivation constitutional right. defense has every interaction juror, is there reporter transcribe such communication." Rushen Spain, 464 114, 125-126, 104 453, 459, 78 267 (1983) (STEVENS, J., concurring judgment). 9 rooted large extent Confrontation Amendment, e.g., Illinois Allen, 397 337, 90 1057, 25 353 (1970), we recognized this protected some situations where defendant actually confronting witnesses evidence him. In Snyder Massachusetts, 291 97, 54 330, 674 (1934), "whenever relation, reasonably substantial, fulness opportunity defend charge. [T]he condition fair hearing thwarted absence, only." Id., 105-106, 108, S.Ct., 332, 333; see Faretta California, 422 806, 819, n. 15, 95 2525, 2533, 45 562 (1975). cautioned exclusion should considered light whole record. U.S., 115, 335. 10 case required ensure fundamental fairness "reasonably charge." Snyder, supra. encounter short interlude complex trial; sort event which attend Respondents done conference, gained anything attending. 333. Indeed, prosecutor counterproductive. Juror quietly purposes sought explain situation require parties when inquires minor occurrence. 11 "stage trial" guaranteed assume opinion correct regard. hold, erred concluding 12 insufficient show valid proof indicated conference. shows, Judge, announced her intention speak chambers, recess. took place recess, resumed shortly thereafter change neither later course asserted may time. lodged, either before after even motions, although hearings often resolve claim. Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 33; Rushen, supra, 119-120, 456, Smith Phillips, 455 209, 218-219, 102 940, 946-947, 71 (1982); Remmer States, 347 227, 230, 74 450, 451, 98 654 (1954). 13 disagree voluntarily absented himself aware. district need get express "on record" attend. As noted previously, "[t]here scarcely lengthy more occasion something, relates matter personal comfort aspect trial." 118, 456. must assert whatever 14 Our today accord our prior cases consistent approach taken many Courts Appeals.2 Taylor 414 17, 94 194, 38 174 (1973), return courthouse morning continued resulting verdicts. arrest sentencing denied effective rejected claim, id., 19-20, 195-196, warned Nor type exist record; defendant's adequate waiver. Similarly, total sufficed waive 15 This analysis comports both language everyday practicalities conducting If entitled certain "stages do take time; claim sentence jury's verdict "guilty." 43(b) states "the shall whenever defendant, initially absents himself. ." Advisory Committee Notes 43, 18 U.S.C.App., p. 646. knew attorney, yet effort Timely invocation least apprised very likely enabled accommodate meritorious part. Unlike Appeals, requires latter-day protests action respect relatively sustained, anew. hold criminal invoke knows taking constitutes petition certiorari motion supplement are granted, judgment 16 Reversed. 17 Justice POWELL part consideration decision case. BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 19 Last Term sharply involving contact (per curiam). Five separate opinions issued. Two Justices urged decide "important questions" raised contacts, 131, 462 (MARSHALL, dissenting); 123, 458 judgment), diverged significantly analyses conclusions. Compare 140, 467 dissenting) (ex contacts implicate three rights: 'right present,' [and] jury") 125, 459 judgment) ("[T]he right"). BLACKMUN dissented, arguing plenary consideration, 122, 457 (BRENNAN, dissenting), reviewed all, 150-153, 472-474 (BLACKMUN, dissenting). 20 face controversy, bare per curiam majority explicitly declined consider "[w]hether [of contact] dimension," 117-118, 2, 455, demonstrated particular facts harmless. 121, 457. 21 Today, so much nod recent reservation question, decides odd ha[s] Amendment," lone Member decided last Term. Ante, 526-527. guiding standard future application provided; simply invokes its power Such ad hoc resolutions invariably engender problems than solutions lower courts. 22 Moreover, directly affected today's permitted brief argue merits. Given highly fact-specific nature case, preference deny certiorari. But if merits addressed, upon full briefing oral argument. Accordingly, respectfully dissent. provides: "(a) Presence Required. arraignment, plea, stage including impaneling verdict, imposition sentence, except otherwise provided rule. "(b) Continued Not further progress prevented "(1) commenced (whether obligation remain trial), "(2) being disruptive conduct cause removed courtroom, persists justify excluded courtroom. "(c) following situations: corporation appear purposes. prosecutions offenses punishable fine imprisonment year both, written consent permit absence. "(3) At argument law. "(4) reduction 35." See, Washington, 227 U.S.App.D.C. 184, 191-193, 705 489, 496-498 (1983); Provenzano, 620 985, 997-998 (CA3), cert. denied, 449 899, 101 267, 66 129 (1980); Bufalino, 576 446, 450-451 (CA2), 439 928, 99 314, 321 (1978); Brown, 571 980, 987 (CA6 1978).

Category: 0