recognizing possibility that some “factual or legal considerations ... might place the case beyond the rationale or holding of Robinson”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing possibility that some “factual or legal considerations ... might place the case beyond the rationale or holding of Robinson”
- noting strength of government’s case was not overwhelming when applying harmless beyond reasonable doubt standard where the trial court erred in refusing to allow defendant to be present during individual voir dire
- "[D.C. Superior Court Criminal Rule 43(a)] requires a defendant to be permitted to participate at that portion of the voir dire conducted at the bench"
- Belson, J., concurring, with whom Newman, then Chief Judge, Mack, Ferren, Pryor and Rogers, Associate Judges, joined
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FERREN, Associate Judge,
with whom NEWMAN, Chief Judge, and MACK, PRYOR, and ROGERS, Associate Judges, join, concurring:
I join in Judge MACK’s opinion for the court emphasizing peremptory challenges. I also join in Part II of Judge BELSON’s opinion discussing challenges for cause. Because there is only one voir dire process for eliciting peremptory challenges and challenges for cause, a defendant’s right to be present at voir dire for either purpose necessarily embraces the right to be present for the other.