home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Shareware Overload Trio 2
/
Shareware Overload Trio Volume 2 (Chestnut CD-ROM).ISO
/
dir33
/
cwru_ct.zip
/
91-6194.ZS
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-11-06
|
2KB
|
45 lines
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
CROSBY v. UNITED STATES
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the eighth circuit
No. 91-6194. Argued November 9, 1992-Decided January 13, 1993
Although petitioner Crosby attended various preliminary proceedings,
he failed to appear at the beginning of his criminal trial. The
Federal District Court permitted the proceedings to go forward in his
absence, and he was convicted and subsequently arrested and sen-
tenced. In affirming his convictions, the Court of Appeals rejected
his argument that his trial was prohibited by Federal Rule of Crimi-
nal Procedure 43, which provides that a defendant must be present
at every stage of trial ``except as otherwise provided'' by the Rule and
which lists situations in which a right to be present may be waived,
including when a defendant, initially present, ``is voluntarily absent
after the trial has commenced.''
Held:Rule 43 prohibits the trial in absentia of a defendant who is not
present at the beginning of trial. The Rule's express use of the
limiting phrase ``except as otherwise provided'' clearly indicates that
the list of situations in which the trial may proceed without the
defendant is exclusive. Moreover, the Rule is a restatement of the
law that existed at the time it was adopted in 1944. Its distinction
between flight before and during trial also is rational, as it marks a
point at which the costs of delaying a trial are likely to increase;
helps to assure that any waiver is knowing and voluntary; and
deprives the defendant of the option of terminating the trial if it
seems that the verdict will go against him. Because Rule 43 is
dispositive, Crosby's claim that the Constitution also prohibited his
trial in absentia is not reached. Pp.3-7.
951 F.2d 357, reversed and remanded.
Blackmun, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.