George Villanueva v. Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, 99 F.3d 401, 2d Cir. (1995)
George Villanueva v. Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, 99 F.3d 401, 2d Cir. (1995)
3d 401
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and was argued.
We review for abuse of discretion the trial judge's decision to try PetitionerAppellant in absentia, United States v. Mackey, 915 F.2d 69, 72 (2d Cir.1990),
and affirm. Prior to trial, the trial judge warned Petitioner-Appellant that failure
to appear in court on any date on which a hearing or trial was scheduled would
result in: (1) forfeiture of bail; (2) issuance of a bench warrant for arrest; and
(3) upon a finding that such absence was willful, a hearing and/or trial in
absentia. Petitioner-Appellant did appear in court on the morning on which a
hearing (which was to be followed immediately by a trial) was scheduled. He
remained in the courtroom, where plea negotiations were being conducted, until
approximately noon. He then requested an adjournment until 2 p.m. The trial
judge denied this request but granted Petitioner-Appellant's request to speak to
his mother, who was present in the courtroom. The trial judge did, however,
instruct Petitioner-Appellant not to leave the courtroom. Notwithstanding this
instruction, Petitioner-Appellant left the courtroom. The court proceeded with
the pre-trial evidentiary hearing but adjourned the trial to the next day. When
Petitioner-Appellant failed to appear the next day, the trial court commenced a
trial in absentia.
7
We have previously stated that a valid waiver will not automatically lead to a
trial in absentia; rather, a trial in absentia will only take place where there is a
controlling public interest in conducting such a trial. See United States v.
Sanchez 790 F.2d 245, 250 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 479 U.S. 989 (1986); United
States v. Tortora, 464 F.2d 1202, 1210 (2d Cir.1972). We are unable to
conclude that the district judge abused his discretion in finding that the public
interest in proceeding to trial in Petitioner-Appellant's absence clearly
outweighed the interest of Petitioner-Appellant in being present at trial.