Cluster 484954

United States v. Harris, 814 F.2d 155, 157 (4th Cir. 1987).

United States v. Harris, 814 F.2d 155, 157 (4th Cir. 1987).

United States v. Harris, 814 F.2d 155, 157 (4th Cir.1987).

On appeal, the government concedes that the district court violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(a) (“The defendant shall be present at ... every stage of the trial ... ”) by communicating with the jury outside of the presence of Parsons and her lawyer. 6 See United States v. Harris, 814 F.2d 155, 157 (4th Cir.1987) (technical violation of Rule 43(a) for judge to respond to a question posed by the jury in the defendant’s absence); United States v. Speight, No. 91-5583, 1992 WL 198089 (4…

B. 5 Smith argues that the district court erred by failing to read the witness list to the potential jurors during voir dire. 1 There is not an "affirmative duty on [a] trial court" in this circuit to read the witness list during voir dire "absent a timely request ... by the defense." United States v. Harris, 814 F.2d 155, 157 (4th Cir.1987).

This case is, of course, readily distinguishable from Brown because here the appellant did not request that the list be read, or for that matter, object to the voir dire in any respect. 1 In United States v. Harris, 814 F.2d 155, 157 (4th Cir.1987), we recognized this distinction and held that a trial court's failure to sua sponte read the witness list was not an abuse of discretion.

See United States v. Harris, 814 F.2d 155, 157 (4th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (finding no prejudice “in light of the fact that defendant’s counsel was present and that prompt remedial measures were taken by the district court” once defendant was brought into courtroom).

See United States v. Harris, 814 F.2d 155, 157 (4th Cir. 1987).

See id. at 874 ; see also, United States v. Harris, 814 F.2d 155 (4th Cir.1987).