Waiver Of Right To Be Present At Trial

21 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Muehleman v. State
  503 So. 2d 310· Fla.· 1987-01-08 ·cited 77×
  Jeffrey Muehleman was convicted of first-degree murder pursuant to a guilty plea and sentenced to death for the brutal killing of a 97-year-old man during a robbery. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and sentence, rejecting Muehleman's challenges to the lawfu
• Parker v. United States
  184 F.2d 488· 4th Cir.· 1950-10-10 ·cited 48×
  A defendant waives the right to be present at trial by proceeding with the trial without objection after learning of their absence, and this waiver cannot be raised in a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
• Wilson v. Fogg
  571 F.2d 91· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-19 ·cited 36×
  A state prisoner petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state remedies by presenting the same claim to state courts that is urged in federal court.
• United States v. Latham
  874 F.2d 852· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-10 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while a defendant's voluntary drug ingestion may not automatically excuse absence, the trial court abused its discretion by proceeding without sufficient inquiry into the circumstances of the defendant's absence and by failing to grant an evidentiary hearing.
• Nixon v. State
  857 So. 2d 172· Fla.· 2003-07-10 ·cited 33×
  Joe Elton Nixon, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of postconviction relief based on his trial counsel's admission of his guilt without his explicit consent. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that silent acquiescence to a counsel's str
• United States v. Benavides
  596 F.2d 137· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-04 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by proceeding with a trial in absentia without sufficient inquiry into rescheduling possibilities and that the Rule 11 hearings were defective for failing to personally explain the nature of the charges.
• King v. United States
  576 F.2d 432· 2d Cir.· 1978-05-05 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate the sentence and the denial of the motion to disqualify the judge.
• United States v. Eliseo Sanchez Rueda
  549 F.2d 865· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that statements from a cooperating witness who is a participant in the crime, corroborated by other facts, can establish probable cause for an arrest.
• United States v. Gordon
  829 F.2d 119· D.C. Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a defendant's waiver of the right to be present at jury selection can be knowing and intelligent even if it occurs through counsel and not in open court, and that the advice of counsel need not meet the highest standards.
• United States v. Houtchens
  926 F.2d 824· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-14 ·cited 12×
  A defendant may be tried in absentia if, after sufficient notice, they knowingly and voluntarily fail to appear for trial. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not addressed on direct appeal. A district judge's statement that disputed sentencing facts do not affect the se
• United States v. Crosby
  917 F.2d 362· 8th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 12×
  A defendant who voluntarily fails to appear for the commencement of their criminal trial waives the protections of Rule 43 and the right to be present.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. George
  680 F.2d 13· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 10×
  A trial commences for Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 purposes when jury selection begins, not when the jury or first witness is sworn, thus a defendant voluntarily absent after jury selection has commenced waives their right to be present.
• Wilson v. Harris
  595 F.2d 101· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-19 ·cited 10×
  A defendant who voluntarily and knowingly absents himself from his trial, through disruptive conduct or refusal to appear, waives his constitutional right to be present.
• United States v. Mitcheal Edmonson
  962 F.2d 1535· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's contentions lacked merit, except for the issue concerning the fine under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which the government conceded. The conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Muzevsky
  760 F.2d 83· 4th Cir.· 1985-04-17 ·cited 6×
  A defendant can waive their right to be present at the commencement of a trial by voluntarily absenting themselves, and the court has discretion to proceed.
• United States v. Watkins
  983 F.2d 1413· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-19 ·cited 4×
  The court reversed the conviction, finding the record did not clearly establish a waiver of the right to be present during trial when the defendant was mute.
• United States v. Nunez
  877 F.2d 1475· 10th Cir.· 1989-06-20 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Hoyt Powell
  611 F.2d 41· 4th Cir.· 1979-11-29 ·cited 2×
  A district court may proceed with a trial in absentia when a defendant, initially present, voluntarily absents himself without a compelling reason after being notified of the trial date.
• Fredench Zanders v. State
  698 So. 2d 282· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-07-02
  Frederich Zanders appeals his conviction, arguing the trial court failed to ensure he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present at a sidebar conference where peremptory challenges were exercised. The Florida appellate court agreed and reversed, holding that a defen
• Thenious Smith v. State
  655 So. 2d 1271· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-06-06