104 S.Ct. 3405)). 27 . See Buford, 632 F.3d at 275-76, 2011 WL 447048, at *9 ("[EJxclusion is not the appropriate remedy when an officer reasonably relies on a United States Court of Appeals' well-settled precedent prior to a change of that law.”); United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1045 (10th Cir.2009) (“[TJhis court declines to apply the exclusionary rule when law enforcement officers act in objectively reasonable reliance upon the settled case law of a United States Court of Appeals."), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1686, 176 L.Ed.2d 179 (2010); Davis, 598 F.3d at 1264 ("[T]he exclusionary rule does not apply when the police conduct a search in objectively reasonable reliance on our well-settled precedent, even if that precedent is subsequently overturned 0 (11th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>), abrogated in part on other grounds by United
holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire holding that the right to have counsel present means the right to have counsel physically present during the interrogation not merely the right to consult an attorney by telephone holding that the constitutional right to be present is satisfied so long as the defendant is given an opportunity to register his opinions with counsel after juror questioning and is present when the exercise of strikes is given formal effect even if the defendant is not present when his lawyer actually exercises the peremptory challenges holding that the defendants right to presence was not violated where the defendant had been present in the courtroom while the venire members were questioned notwithstanding the fact that the defendant was absent later when his attorney made his strikes over the lunch hour because the defendant was present in the courtroom when the clerk gave the strikes effect by reading off the list of jurors who had not been stricken holding that the defendants were not denied their right to be present during the peremptory strike phase of jury selection where they were present during voir dire had a chance to confer with counsel before the jury was impaneled and were present in the courtroom when the peremptory strikes were given actual effect by the clerks reading off the list