Carl Henry v. Frederick Haws

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Carl Henry appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The district court granted a certificate of ap-pealability on a single issue: whether the trial court violated Petitioner’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be present when he was removed from the courtroom. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We affirm.

The Supreme Court has clearly established that “[o]ne of the most basic of the rights guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause is the accused’s right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of his trial.” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338 , 90 S.Ct. 1057 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970) (citing Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370 , 13 S.Ct. 136 , 36 L.Ed. 1011 (1892)). But contrary to Petitioner’s contention, the Court has not clearly established that it is a constitutional violation to remove an unruly defendant from the courtroom without issuing the defendant a warning regarding the consequences of his actions. Reflecting the lack of guidance from the Court, lower courts have diverged on this issue. Compare Jones v. Murphy, 694 F.3d 225 , 242 n. 9 (2d Cir.2012),…