United States v. Yannai, 791 F.3d 226

Background

Joseph Yannai was indicted on federal charges including enticement under 18 U.S.C. § 2422, forced labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589), fraud in foreign labor contracting (18 U.S.C. § 1351), importation/inducement of aliens (8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1328), and unlawful employment of aliens (clerical error later corrected to 8 U.S.C. § 1324a). He was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced to 132 months.
Trial evidence included emails and testimony from multiple women alleging fraudulent recruitment to the U.S. and sexual/ labor abuse; the evidentiary phase and summations were completed before the jury charge.
Yannai twice overdosed on prescription benzodiazepines while under prosecution: an August 2010 deliberate overdose (he admitted attempting suicide to avoid jail) and a June 1, 2011 overdose that rendered him unconscious during the final trial stage (jury charge/deliberations).
The district court, after consulting treating physicians and a psychiatrist, found the June 1 overdose more likely than not to be deliberate and concluded Yannai voluntarily absented himself; it resumed trial after a one-day adjournment and informed the jury of Yannai’s hospitalization.
Defense later argued the June 1 event was an accidental benzodiazepine buildup and moved for mistrial and, post-verdict, for a new trial under Rule 33. The district court denied both, finding the absence voluntary and that a new trial was not required in the interests of justice. The Second Circuit affirmed (remanding only to correct the statutory citation).

Issues

Issue	Yannai's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Yannai’s Sixth Amendment/Rule 43 right to be present was violated when trial resumed after a one-day adjournment	The absence was involuntary/accidental (residual sedative buildup); court improperly treated him as having waived the right	The June 1 overdose was deliberate; a defendant who voluntarily absents himself waives presence and trial may proceed	Court affirmed: district court’s factual finding of voluntary absence not clearly erroneous; proceeding was permissible
Who bore burden of proof on voluntariness/intent of overdose	Yannai: court improperly placed burden on defendant to prove absence involuntary	Government: evidence supported voluntariness; burden allocation immaterial where record is not in equipoise	Court: need not resolve burden allocation; found evidence favored voluntariness regardless of which side bore burden
Whether denial of a longer continuance or mistrial (and denial of Rule 33 new-trial motion) was an abuse of discretion	A longer adjournment or mistrial/new trial was required because Yannai’s presence was critical for charge/deliberations and juror exposure to media prejudiced him	Public interest, juror/witness convenience, and strong record justified proceeding; mistrial/new trial would impose trauma and delay	Court affirmed: district court did not abuse its discretion in denying continuance, mistrial, or new trial
Whether juror exposure to media reports that Yannai attempted suicide required a new trial	Media reports caused prejudice; a pause would have allowed correction once Yannai regained consciousness	Court questioned jurors; jurors said reports would not affect impartiality; Yannai’s account was not credible enough to justify reopening	Court affirmed: questioning sufficed, no showing of prejudice, and later proffered exculpatory corrections were not established

Key Cases Cited

Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (defendant may forfeit right to be present by disruptive conduct)
Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442 (1912) (voluntary absence after trial begins operates as waiver of right to be present)
Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (1987) (presence required at critical stages where defendant’s presence would contribute to fairness)
Crosby v. United States, 506 U.S. 255 (1993) (Rule 43 permits trial to proceed when defendant voluntarily absents himself)
United States v. Tureseo, 566 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2009) (defendant’s presence required at critical stages; inquiry into voluntary absence)
United States v. Sanchez, 790 F.2d 245 (2d Cir. 1986) (voluntary absence waives right to be present; court must weigh public interest)
United States v. Tortora, 464 F.2d 1202 (2d Cir.) (1972) (deliberate failure to appear constitutes voluntary absence)
United States v. Fontanez, 878 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1989) (court must vigorously safeguard right to be present; limited circumstances to proceed)
Polizzi v. United States, 926 F.2d 1311 (2d Cir. 1991) (balancing public interest and defendant’s right when absent)
United States v. Nichols, 56 F.3d 403 (2d Cir. 1995) (public interest in preventing contumacious defendants from dictating trials)