Although petitioner Crosby attended various preliminary proceedings, he failed to appear at the beginning of his criminal trial. The Federal District Court permitted the proceedings to go forward in his absence, and he was convicted and subsequently arrested and sentenced. In affirming his convictions, the Court of Appeals rejected his argument that his trial was prohibited by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43, which provides that a defendant must be present at every stage of trial "except as otherwise provided" by the Rule, and which lists situations in which a right to be present may be waived, including when a defendant, initially present, "is voluntarily absent after the trial has commenced."

Held:

Rule 43 prohibits the trial in absentia of a defendant who is not present at the beginning of trial. The Rules express use of the limiting phrase "except as otherwise provided" clearly indicates that the list of situations in which the trial may proceed without the defendant is exclusive. Moreover, the Rule is a restatement of the law that existed at the time it was adopted in 1944. Its distinction between flight before and during trial also is rational, as it marks a point at which the costs of delaying a trial are likely to increase; helps to assure that any waiver is knowing and voluntary; and deprives the defendant of the option of terminating the trial if it seems that the verdict will go against him. Because Rule 43 is dispositive, Crosbys claim that the Constitution also prohibited his trial in absentia is not reached. Pp. 258-262.

951 F.2d 357, reversed and remanded.

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Mark D. Nyvold, by appointment of the court, 503 U.S. 934, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

Richard H. Seamon argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Starr, [506 U.S. 255, 256] Assistant Attorney General Mueller, and Deputy Solicitor General Bryson.*

[Footnote *] Steven R. Shapiro and John A. Powell filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging reversal.

JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to decide whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 permits the trial in absentia of a defendant who absconds prior to trial and is absent at its beginning. We hold that it does not.

In April, 1988, a federal grand jury in the District of Minnesota indicted petitioner Michael Crosby and others on a number of counts of mail fraud. The indictment alleged that Crosby and his codefendants had devised a fraudulent scheme to sell military veteran commemorative medallions supposedly to fund construction of a theme park honoring veterans. Crosby appeared before a federal magistrate on June 15, 1988, and, upon his plea of not guilty, was conditionally released from detention after agreeing to post a $100,000 bond and remain in the State. Subsequently, he attended pretrial conferences and hearings with his attorney, and was advised that the trial was scheduled to begin on October 12.

Crosby did not appear on October 12, however, nor could he be found. United States deputy marshals reported that his house looked as though it had been "cleaned out," and a neighbor reported that petitioners car had been backed halfway into his garage the previous evening, as if he were packing its trunk. As the day wore on, the court remarked several times that the pool of 54 potential jurors was being kept waiting, and that the delay in the proceedings would interfere with the courts calendar. The prosecutor noted that Crosbys attorney and his three codefendants were present, and commented on the difficulty she would have in rescheduling [506 U.S. 255, 257] the case, should Crosby later appear, because some of her many witnesses were elderly and had health problems.

When