Please consider the following hypothetical situation:
A person has been indicted for a criminal violation of the law. He has made bail and is not in custody. He claims he/she is innocent and he does not want to testify. He believes, and his attorney tend to agree, that the evidence against him is not sufficient for the jury to convict.
Does the defendant need to show up for the trial at all? Could he show up for part of the trial and then leave?
Wikipedia's article on Trial in absentia does a pretty good job of explaining this.
In short, Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure says a defendant must be present
But there's a list of exceptions to that:
The defendant can voluntarily leave after the trial commences, waiving their right to be present
A disruptive defendant can be removed by the judge's order (after a warning)
In a misdemeanor case, the defendant can submit a written statement to waive their right to be present
And the defendant need not be present for a conference or argument over a question of law. (A question of law is an argument over what the law actually means or how it applies, which is decided by the judge. The jury decides on a question of fact, i.e. whether not the defendant broke the law. Questions of law are generally extremely technical discussions.)
That first exception is the big one: You have to show up for the start of the trial, and then you can voluntarily leave. It might look bad to the judge or jury, but I believe this happens pretty often with politicians and businessmen, where they'll show up on a few key days and other than that let the lawyers handle everything, or be out for part of the trial because they're busy that day.
Does the defendant need to show up for the trial at all?
Yes.
As a matter of U.S. Constitutional law, a criminal defendant must be present at the start of a criminal trial for it to be valid.
If the defendant absconds mid-trial, however, the trial can still proceed to a conviction in the defendant's absence.
