James Edward Hegler v. Robert Borg, Warden, Attorney General of the State of California

990 F.2d 1258 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. James Edward HEGLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert BORG, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, Attorney General of the State of California, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-55497. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 23, 1993. * Decided April 6, 1993. Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, and FARRIS and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 The government argues that although Hegler and his lawyer were not actually in the jury room during the rereading of testimony, Hegler was not denied his right to be present because he and his lawyer were in a nearby court room. 1 We reject the argument. A criminal defendant has the right to be "personally present in the courtroom at every stage of his trial...." Bustamante v. Eyman, 456 F.2d 269, 271 (9th Cir.1972). The replaying of taped testimony or rereading of transcripts "is more properly viewed as a stage of the trial at which the presence of the defendant…