Court Opinion

ID: 9449766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:22:05.017829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:58.514468
License: Public Domain

WASHINGTON, Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
It seems clear that neither the Constitution nor the first sentence of Rule 43 precludes a waiver by an accused of his right to be present at his trial.1 The question in each’ case must be whether fair procedures have been followed, and the interests of substantial justice adequately served. Here, for the reasons given by Judge Wright in the concluding portion of his opinion, I think there must be a new trial.

. Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 35 S.Ct. 582, 59 L.Ed. 969 (1915); Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 54 S.Ct. 330, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934); Parker v. United States, 184 F.2d 488, 490 (4th Cir. 1950); Glouser v. United States, 296 F.2d 853, 855 (8th Cir. 1961); United States v. Davis, 25 Fed. Cas. 773 (C.C.S.D.N.X.1869); Echert v. United States, 188 F.2d 336 (8th Cir. 1951).