People v. Epps, 37 N.Y.2d 343 (1975)
An incarcerated defendant can waive their right to be present at trial, but such a waiver is suspect and subject to careful examination to ensure it is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, free from official coercion or obstruction.
Summary
Donald Epps, incarcerated during his trial for multiple violent felonies, refused to attend court proceedings as part of an inmate boycott. The trial continued in his absence, and he was convicted. Epps appealed, arguing that an incarcerated defendant cannot voluntarily waive their right to be present at trial. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that while the right to be present can be waived even by incarcerated defendants, such waivers must be carefully scrutinized for voluntariness and knowledge. The Court found no evidence of official coercion in Epps’s absence, which stemmed from his participation in the boycott after being advised of his right to attend.
Facts
Donald Epps was charged with multiple counts of attempted murder, sexual abuse, sodomy, coercion, grand larceny, and assault stemming from an attack on two women. He was incarcerated pending trial. Jury selection occurred with Epps present. After the first victim testified to the brutal acts committed against her, Epps refused to attend the trial on subsequent days, participating in a jail boycott. The court and his attorney advised him to attend, warning him that the trial would proceed in his absence. Epps remained absent, and the trial continued. Defense counsel rested without calling any witnesses due to Epps’s absence.
Procedural History
The jury convicted Epps on multiple counts. Epps moved to vacate his conviction, arguing that his trial in absentia violated his right to be present. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed. Epps appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether an incarcerated defendant is capable of waiving the right to be present at trial.
2. Whether Epps knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to be present, given his incarceration and participation in an inmate boycott.
Holding
1. Yes, because the right to be present at trial, while fundamental, is waivable under both the Federal and State Constitutions, even by an incarcerated defendant.
2. Yes, because the trial court determined that Epps had the opportunity to be present but failed to avail himself of the opportunity by his own volition, and there was no official conspiracy to deprive Epps of his right to be present.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the historical roots of the right to be present at trial, tracing it back to early jurisprudence where absence could lead to outlawry. However, the court emphasized that the modern view, as established in Diaz v. United States, recognizes the right as being for the benefit of the accused and therefore waivable. “Whenever there is a waiver by an incarcerated defendant it will be suspect and subjected to careful examination. If a judicial inquiry discloses the slightest hint of official connivance or obstruction with respect to the defendant’s right to be present at his trial, that waiver will not be operative.”
The Court distinguished Epps’s situation from cases involving official obstruction, noting that Epps’s absence stemmed from his voluntary participation in an inmate boycott. To allow such conduct to halt trials would set a dangerous precedent. “To condone this course of conduct, particularly where the defendant senses imminent conviction, would make a travesty of our criminal justice system.”
Regarding whether Epps knowingly and intelligently waived his right, the Court found that Epps was repeatedly advised by the trial judge, his attorney, and Department of Correction personnel of the consequences of his absence. While having the defendant state his waiver on the record would be preferable, the Court noted the practical difficulties and potential dangers of forcing Epps to appear, especially given the ongoing boycott. The court determined that Epps understood the impact of his decision.