Why *must* a defendant be present during a criminal trial?

Question

The Sixth Amendment guarantees:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury....

I recently discovered that, in general, these "rights" are not optional!

For example, under under Federal rule: if you want a bench trial in a criminal matter, both the prosecution and the judge must agree to waive the jury (FRCP 23a). (Many states do, however, allow a criminal defendant to unilaterally opt for a bench trial.)

Likewise: Under FRCP 43, a criminal defendant cannot opt out of being present for his entire trial.

These rules seem opposed to the basic civic principles that surround the presumption of innocence before conviction, and the right of a person to pursue an effective defense. I can think of plenty of reasons why a person may not want to show his face in a public court, much less sit through the entire process. Including reasons that may prejudice the triers of fact: e.g., disfigurement, handicaps that produce irritating tics, etc.

The notes on these federal rules cite a great deal of jurisprudence and history. Before I attempt my own research, can anyone point to principles or customs that might illuminate or reconcile these FRCP mandates with the basic understanding of American criminal justice I described?

Answer 1

SCOTUS has at least three times found that it is necessary for a defendant to be present at the beginning of a criminal trial in order to satisfy the Constitutional mandates regarding due process.

So the simple answer is that a defendant must be present during a criminal trial because without his presence no trial can begin.

However, once a trial has begun FRCP Rule 43 itself (section c) allows for the absence of the defendant. Among the provisions: The defendant can waive his right to be present simply by voluntary absence. The defendant can also waive his right by disruptive behavior in the court.

Answer 2

Here on Law SE, we can answer questions about what the law is. We cannot be so eager to answer why it is what it is.

While the basic purpose of the right to be present during trial, and to have a jury trial, is to protect the defendant, other purposes may be served as well. In particular, it is often said that a jury may and should evaluate the appearance and expressions of the defendant, just as they do with witnesses. Obviously they cannot do this if the defendant is absent.

I don't know why a defendant must obtain the consent of the prosecution for a non-jury trial, particularly when the rule is otherwise in many states. But there is no constitutional right to a non-jury trial. If Congress chose to abolish bench trials in all Federal cases, it could. Therefore this rule is also constitutional.

Similarly there is no constitutional right to be absent during a trial.

Answer 3

I think it's because defendants could avoid trial to prevent identification, or to otherwise improperly disrupt the course of the proceedings:

Despite some earlier authority to the contrary, courts now agree that the right to be present guaranteed by the federal constitution can be waived or forfeited in capital, as well as non-capital, cases.

Although a defendant can waive his right to be present at his trial, he does not have a constitutional right to insist upon his absence. For, as the Supreme Court explained in Singer v. United States, “[t]he ability to waive a constitutional right does not ordinarily carry with it the right to insist upon the opposite of that right.” A trial court therefore can order a defendant’s personal appearance, despite his desire to stay away from the trial, whenever his presence is necessary to conduct the trial properly, such as where the prosecution contemplates having one of its witnesses make an in-court identification of the accused.

3 David S. Rudstein, et al., Criminal Constitutional Law § 14A.02 (2018) (citations omitted).

Answer 4

The interpretation of the Right as being non-optional, makes sense if you understand that the first 8 Amendments are defending against a corrupt government.

1. Free Speech (government can’t make it a crime to say they did something bad)
2. Arms (2nd class citizens, without rights)
3. Housing (no housing and feeding the thugs assaulting and raping your family)
4. Search (no stealing your stuff or rifling through your stuff looking for something they don’t like)
5. Criminal charges (no torture, no charging until guilty, no charges on a whim)
6. More criminal cases (no holding without ever trying them, no secret trials for secret crimes)
7. Civil suits (no decisions by the complainant’s friend or business partner or appealed to some guy that just makes a decision)
8. Reasonable repercussions (no accusing someone of nothing much and then demanding everything they own, or saying they stole a penny and cutting off their legs).

The amendment’s exist as a remedy for actual wrongs that were being done. For instance the 3rd amendment doesn’t exist as a reminder to the government to allocate enough funds to feed and house their troops, it’s because at the time the government was showing up at peoples houses with a bunch of soldiers and saying “These guys are going to be living with you now, you are responsible for taking care of them, what’s yours is theirs, if you fight with them for any reason that’s treason”.

If the government can try you in absentia, that’s a short step away from trying you without letting you (or anyone else) know you are on trial.