judges would have refused to consider the appeal on procedural grounds.) However, regardless of whether a defendant has a constitutional right to have counsel present at the government’s examinations, the court has the discretion to order that a defense representative be allowed to attend or that the testing be recorded. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12.2(c)(1)(B) (“court may ... order the defendant to be examined under procedures ordered by the court”); United States v. Kaczynski, 1997 WL 668395, at *3 (E.D.Cal. Oct. 22, 1997) (denying government request to videotape government experts’ examinations, but allowing examinations to be audio-taped and permitting defense counsel to monitor examinations via live audio or video feed); Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 426 Mass. 105, 686 N.E.2d 1001, 1005 (1997) (<HOLDING>). The court’s exercise of its discretion may be
holding that while sixth amendment does not categorically demand that defense counsel be allowed to attend or videotape government testing court has discretion to allow either procedure holding that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the sixth amendment right to counsel recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to counsel and the right to waive counsel holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial holding that the court lacks jurisdiction over sixth amendment claims because the sixth amendment is not moneymandating