Sup. Ct. R. D.C. 43
COMMENT TO 2022 AMENDMENTS
Rule 43 has been amended to expand the Superior Court's authority to permit a defendant to appear by video teleconferencing or telephone conferencing, i.e., remotely. The amended rule also clarifies when a defendant must be physically present, when the defendant may participate remotely, and when a proceeding may occur in a defendant's absence. The amendments largely track, and make permanent, the court's temporary emergency authority to expand the types of proceedings that could occur remotely (former section (d)). The court's experience during COVID-19 has shown that remote proceedings function well.
Subsection (c) (former section (b)(2)) has been divided into two parts. Subsection (c)(1)(A) now permits any misdemeanor proceeding to occur remotely. The former rule, like the federal rule, permitted only a misdemeanor arraignment, plea, trial, or sentencing to occur remotely. New section (c)(2)(B) permits a felony plea, sentencing, or other nontrial hearing to occur remotely, although only by video teleconferencing, unlike the federal rule which does not provide for remote felony proceedings. New section (a) defines the terms misdemeanor and felony, and the remaining sections have been redesignated accordingly.
Finally, the amended rule specifies additional conditions under which the court may permit a proceeding to occur remotely or in the defendant's absence. Minor revisions also have been made for clarity and to conform to the general restyling of the rules.
COMMENT TO 2017 AMENDMENTS
This rule incorporates the 2011 amendment to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43. Subsection (b)(2) has been amended to permit proceedings in misdemeanor cases to occur by video teleconference, if the defendant consents in writing and the court approves.
COMMENT TO 2016 AMENDMENTS
This rule has been redrafted to conform to the general restyling of the federal rules in 2002. It is identical to the federal rule except that subparagraph (c)(1)(B) omits the phrase "in a noncapital case" since there are no such cases in Superior Court.
The former Superior Court rule did not permit the court to impose sentence on a defendant who was voluntarily absent. As amended, this rule does permit it, and so conforms to the changes made in the federal rule in 1995.