client. Whether or not the District Court played a role in creating the lawyer-client tension, a complete lack of communication constitutes sufficient conflict to warrant the substitution of new counsel. Moore, 159 F.3d at 1159-60. The District Judge’s refusal to grant a continuance, his failure to adequately explain his decision on the record, and his denial of the motion to substitute counsel violated Nguyen’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The judgment of conviction is REVERSED. 1 . The Judge's comment during jury selection, that Nguyen "doesn’t have to be in the courtroom, does he?” further underscores the Court’s lack of care for the defendant's involvement in and understanding of the trial. See Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 873, 109 S.Ct. 2237, 104 L.Ed.2d 923 (1989) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Camacho, 955 F.2d 950,
holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire holding that the legislature intended the trial court to be more involved in the voir dire procedure in capital felony cases holding that defense counsel may decide whether to consent to voir dire proceedings before a federal magistrate holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice holding that because the defendant failed to make any objection at the close of voir dire he waived his batson claim