between Gant and Edwards, compare supra n ght of the defense to exercise peremptory challenges, which ordinarily is exercised by counsel, can require direct consultation with the defendant and something more than second hand descriptions of the prospective jurors' responses to questions during voir dire.”); cf. United States v. Fontenot, 14 F.3d 1364, 1369-70 (9th Cir.1994) (rejecting a Rule 43(a) challenge brought by a defendant who "was absent from the peremptory challenge conference” on the ground that the defendant "was present for the jury voir dire” and "had the opportunity to discuss his misgivings with counsel during and immediately following voir dire, prior to exercising his peremptory challenges”). 35 . See, e.g., Cohen v. Senkowski, 290 F.3d 485, 490 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gayles, 1 F.3d 735, 738 (8th
holding that the constitutional right to present a defense is not violated by the exclusion of a defendants proffered evidence where he is otherwise given the opportunity to present his defense and crossexamine the key prosecution witnesses 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 recognizing constitutional right to be present when sentence is imposed 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 holding that a defendant did not waive his right to be present at an ex parte encounter between the judge and juror because he was not present at the time of the communication and therefore had no opportunity to object when the error was committed