What does it mean for a defendant to be tried in absentia? In what two situations may a defendant be tried in absentia?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The right to be present in court extends to hearings “whenever his presence has a relation,
reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge “ (Snyder v.
Massachusetts, 1934, p. 106). Note that the Court did not say a defendant has an absolute right to be
present at all times during the trial. Rather the Court said the defendant has a right to be present when
being present has a “reasonably substantial” relationship to his or her ability to effectively defend the
charges. Thus while there is a general right to be present at trial, it does not necessarily extend to pretrial
hearing on procedural matters, meetings between the judge and attorneys regarding evidentiary items, or
those rare instances when the court takes the jury outside the courtroom to view a relevant scene or locale.
—Courts have also found that the right to be present at trial may be forfeited or waived by the defendant.
There are two primary ways that this takes place. First, if a defendant absconds either before or during his
or her trial, he or she may be tried in absentia (Taylor v. United States, 1973). Before a court conducts a
trial in absentia, the court must determine that the absence is voluntary and deliberate. So long as the
defendant had notice of the time the proceedings were to begin, intentional absence is presumed, and the
trial will likely proceed without the defendant being present. The second circumstance where defendants
forfeit their right to be present at trial is when they repeatedly disrupt the proceedings by their unruly,
loud, and disruptive conduct.