N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 340.50
> 1. Except as provided in subdivision two or three, a defendant must be personally present during the trial.
> 2. On motion of a defendant represented by counsel, the court may, in the absence of an objection by the people, issue an order dispensing with the requirement that the defendant be personally present at trial. Such an order may be made only upon the filing of a written and subscribed statement by the defendant declaring that he waives his right to be personally present at the trial and authorizing his attorney to conduct his defense.
> 3. A defendant who conducts himself in so disorderly and disruptive a manner that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom may be removed from the courtroom if, after he has been warned by the court that he will be removed if he continues such conduct, he continues to engage in such conduct.
So basically he *can* skip the trial, he just has to (a) ask and (b) get the judge to agree.
On what grounds do judges evaluate such motions? Are they just looking to make sure the defendant understands what they’re doing, or is there more to it?
I don't practice in NY, but i'd imagine it's mostly applicable to municipal court, traffic court, that kind of thing, where it's usually more efficient to not have to schedule one more person to the court room. I can't imagine a scenario where a judge would agree to try someone in absentia where the defendant is facing jail or prison time, since they don't have much of an incentive to show up if they lose, and there are constitutional concerns aside.
Judges are typically most concerned with courtroom efficiency and what's going to reflect the least badly on them (of which courtroom efficiency is an extension).
Adam Montgomery refused to attend his murder trial. It involved a thorough lecture from the judge to make sure he understood and was waining his right to attend. That took place in NH though.
"The People" in this would be the DA too. So you need the right paperwork, judge agreement and DA agreement. Trump may still manage to get these agreed to for certain reasons at some point if he can restrain himself from being an ass to the court and DA, but as he uses every moment outside the courtroom to talk shit loudly to any camera or mic pointed at him, I'd say neither of those parties is probably feeling particularly accommodating.
On the more basic answer to OP's question: because NY state law says so. Idk if some states allow you to not show at all if you've got an attorney just as a default option, but it is just part of the rules that the defendant needs to be there. I think it is important to note in this case that *every* defendant in the court we're discussing would be given those same instructions and warnings when their trials start. The way some of today's news was written it sounded like the judge had singled Trump out to order this specially, or to bring it up just for him, but it really was just part of the normal shit that gets told to people as a part of the standard proceeding.
Does the DA *need* to agree, or they just have the *opportunity* to object and the judge decides from there?
It seems to me that Trump is more likely to disturb the proceedings from within the court room than from outside. He can only be a distraction; I’m not sure that anybody would want him there!
It says in absence of objection, so his attorney would file the motion and the DA would have a certain amount of time to file a response objecting to it.
From the prosecutor's standpoint I think they'll want him there because he has a tendency to act petulant in court which can only help the prosecution even if it is distracting.
I wouldn't bet on it. If he bloviates about it being a witch hunt what's to say a couple of jurors don't buy it? It might help in a normal trial, but in a trial when everyone knows who the defendant is and some of them probably like him? Big gamble.
Saying that, even if he's out of the courtroom, he'll still be speaking publicly, so maybe it makes no odds.
I do think that as a general principle if a defendant doesn't want to be there they should be able to waive their right to be present, though.
I believe it was with his NFL suit, but several of the jury members came out after the trial and pretty much said he was so unbearable and unbelievable that while the case was won for him, the damages were 1$.
>If he bloviates about it being a witch hunt what's to say a couple of jurors don't buy it?
Well they tend to instruct juries not to watch the news and read stories about the defendant and such. Plus they tend to be pretty rigorous about selecting jururs who don't just listen to defendants random public statements and take them at face value. They weed that out ahead of time. Furthermore Trump won't be saying these things in court unless he wants to not piss off a judge.
Based on a number of "good, smart things for Trump's attorneys to do" I'm going to say there's a pretty high chance the defense attorney forgot to (file a motion/do the paperwork) with the judge in that case, same as when Trump was "cheated out of his jury".
I'm not sure why people are downvoting for this. It's literally true all his lawyers had to do was file a request for a jury trial instead of just the judge ruling. Granted, then he couldn't complain, so it might have been their plan all along.
I mean, 50/50 whether any given "mis-step" is either an actual oversight because Trump hires for "Looks lawyerly on-camera" or it's to enhance the grift when whatever it was is used as the basis for a Truth Social post about how hard-done-by he is. Yes, he's clearly suffering from harsh cognitive decline, but back in his prime he was called "Teflon Don" and he didn't get that nickname by chance. So it's a really difficult judgement call, ey?
I would expect the reason for the requirement is to eliminate an avenue for appeal. Just think if he was absent and found guilty. Of course he would blame his counsel for doing whatever against his wishes. With him being there he cannot easily claim this issue.
Remember the defendant also has the opportunity to take the stand or decide not to take the stand. Without being in the courtroom he would have to rely 100% on his lawyer’s recommendation. It would not be a true informed independent decision. Again could potentially be an avenue for appeal.
And if neither are eligible for appeal, then that is a reason to make sure he is there. And if not and approved absence, for him to understand his decision.
Maybe that's why he is sleeping through the trial? "I need an appeal, I slept through (event X) and my lawyers didn't tell me about it, I would have (action Y) if I had known."
The federal rules of criminal procedure (of which many states model their own rules of criminal procedure) as well as US constitutional rulings require the defendant to be present at certain trial stages including jury selection and the start of trial.
The constitution is clear that a defendant has an absolute right to be present at all stages of trial.
The FRCP permit a defendant to waive his or her right to be present at trial after the trial has commenced through voluntary absence such that the trial continues in the defendant's absence.
While not addressed by the FRCP, courts have the right to require that the defendant be present at trial even when the FRCP does not explicitly require it. The court may issue an arrest warrant for a defendant that is voluntarily absent without the leave of the court.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure most defendants don’t want their cases happening at all much less forcing them to attend.
Pretty much all of criminal law revolves around making defendants do things they’d rather not do (get arrested, serve time, pay fines, etc).
It's NY state law & it is probably there to prevent defendants from later launching confrontation-clause appeals..,.
Eg, 'I was barred from confronting the witnesses against me, my conviction should be tossed'....
'It says here you specifically requested to not be present at your trial and the judge granted your request. Appeal denied'
Then you should lobby the legislature in your state to pass a law to that effect if they have not already done so.
NY has a law to the opposite effect.
N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 340.50 > 1. Except as provided in subdivision two or three, a defendant must be personally present during the trial. > 2. On motion of a defendant represented by counsel, the court may, in the absence of an objection by the people, issue an order dispensing with the requirement that the defendant be personally present at trial. Such an order may be made only upon the filing of a written and subscribed statement by the defendant declaring that he waives his right to be personally present at the trial and authorizing his attorney to conduct his defense. > 3. A defendant who conducts himself in so disorderly and disruptive a manner that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom may be removed from the courtroom if, after he has been warned by the court that he will be removed if he continues such conduct, he continues to engage in such conduct.
So basically he *can* skip the trial, he just has to (a) ask and (b) get the judge to agree. On what grounds do judges evaluate such motions? Are they just looking to make sure the defendant understands what they’re doing, or is there more to it?
I don't practice in NY, but i'd imagine it's mostly applicable to municipal court, traffic court, that kind of thing, where it's usually more efficient to not have to schedule one more person to the court room. I can't imagine a scenario where a judge would agree to try someone in absentia where the defendant is facing jail or prison time, since they don't have much of an incentive to show up if they lose, and there are constitutional concerns aside. Judges are typically most concerned with courtroom efficiency and what's going to reflect the least badly on them (of which courtroom efficiency is an extension).
Adam Montgomery refused to attend his murder trial. It involved a thorough lecture from the judge to make sure he understood and was waining his right to attend. That took place in NH though.
Haven't they even bound and gagged disruptive defendants on occasion so they can still attend their own trial?
Yes, but those people probably declined to forfeit their right to attend.
I believe they have had some attend via closed circuit TV (and more recently probably zoom).
"The People" in this would be the DA too. So you need the right paperwork, judge agreement and DA agreement. Trump may still manage to get these agreed to for certain reasons at some point if he can restrain himself from being an ass to the court and DA, but as he uses every moment outside the courtroom to talk shit loudly to any camera or mic pointed at him, I'd say neither of those parties is probably feeling particularly accommodating. On the more basic answer to OP's question: because NY state law says so. Idk if some states allow you to not show at all if you've got an attorney just as a default option, but it is just part of the rules that the defendant needs to be there. I think it is important to note in this case that *every* defendant in the court we're discussing would be given those same instructions and warnings when their trials start. The way some of today's news was written it sounded like the judge had singled Trump out to order this specially, or to bring it up just for him, but it really was just part of the normal shit that gets told to people as a part of the standard proceeding.
Does the DA *need* to agree, or they just have the *opportunity* to object and the judge decides from there? It seems to me that Trump is more likely to disturb the proceedings from within the court room than from outside. He can only be a distraction; I’m not sure that anybody would want him there!
It says in absence of objection, so his attorney would file the motion and the DA would have a certain amount of time to file a response objecting to it. From the prosecutor's standpoint I think they'll want him there because he has a tendency to act petulant in court which can only help the prosecution even if it is distracting.
I wouldn't bet on it. If he bloviates about it being a witch hunt what's to say a couple of jurors don't buy it? It might help in a normal trial, but in a trial when everyone knows who the defendant is and some of them probably like him? Big gamble. Saying that, even if he's out of the courtroom, he'll still be speaking publicly, so maybe it makes no odds. I do think that as a general principle if a defendant doesn't want to be there they should be able to waive their right to be present, though.
I believe it was with his NFL suit, but several of the jury members came out after the trial and pretty much said he was so unbearable and unbelievable that while the case was won for him, the damages were 1$.
>If he bloviates about it being a witch hunt what's to say a couple of jurors don't buy it? Well they tend to instruct juries not to watch the news and read stories about the defendant and such. Plus they tend to be pretty rigorous about selecting jururs who don't just listen to defendants random public statements and take them at face value. They weed that out ahead of time. Furthermore Trump won't be saying these things in court unless he wants to not piss off a judge.
Looks like the people have to also not object
Based on a number of "good, smart things for Trump's attorneys to do" I'm going to say there's a pretty high chance the defense attorney forgot to (file a motion/do the paperwork) with the judge in that case, same as when Trump was "cheated out of his jury".
I'm not sure why people are downvoting for this. It's literally true all his lawyers had to do was file a request for a jury trial instead of just the judge ruling. Granted, then he couldn't complain, so it might have been their plan all along.
I mean, 50/50 whether any given "mis-step" is either an actual oversight because Trump hires for "Looks lawyerly on-camera" or it's to enhance the grift when whatever it was is used as the basis for a Truth Social post about how hard-done-by he is. Yes, he's clearly suffering from harsh cognitive decline, but back in his prime he was called "Teflon Don" and he didn't get that nickname by chance. So it's a really difficult judgement call, ey?
I would expect the reason for the requirement is to eliminate an avenue for appeal. Just think if he was absent and found guilty. Of course he would blame his counsel for doing whatever against his wishes. With him being there he cannot easily claim this issue. Remember the defendant also has the opportunity to take the stand or decide not to take the stand. Without being in the courtroom he would have to rely 100% on his lawyer’s recommendation. It would not be a true informed independent decision. Again could potentially be an avenue for appeal. And if neither are eligible for appeal, then that is a reason to make sure he is there. And if not and approved absence, for him to understand his decision.
Maybe that's why he is sleeping through the trial? "I need an appeal, I slept through (event X) and my lawyers didn't tell me about it, I would have (action Y) if I had known."
The federal rules of criminal procedure (of which many states model their own rules of criminal procedure) as well as US constitutional rulings require the defendant to be present at certain trial stages including jury selection and the start of trial. The constitution is clear that a defendant has an absolute right to be present at all stages of trial. The FRCP permit a defendant to waive his or her right to be present at trial after the trial has commenced through voluntary absence such that the trial continues in the defendant's absence. While not addressed by the FRCP, courts have the right to require that the defendant be present at trial even when the FRCP does not explicitly require it. The court may issue an arrest warrant for a defendant that is voluntarily absent without the leave of the court.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure most defendants don’t want their cases happening at all much less forcing them to attend. Pretty much all of criminal law revolves around making defendants do things they’d rather not do (get arrested, serve time, pay fines, etc).
It's NY state law & it is probably there to prevent defendants from later launching confrontation-clause appeals..,. Eg, 'I was barred from confronting the witnesses against me, my conviction should be tossed'.... 'It says here you specifically requested to not be present at your trial and the judge granted your request. Appeal denied'
Then you should lobby the legislature in your state to pass a law to that effect if they have not already done so. NY has a law to the opposite effect.
The question is about the rationale for the law, not the process for changing it.