to be present. Atwood contends that regardless of his trial counsels’ failure to request his presence, the trial judge had an obligation to invite him to, and secure his presence at, the meeting in which the jury was informed of the threatening phone call. The law is clear in that a defendant’s right to be present at all phases of the trial is not absolute, and can be waived. See, e.g. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970) (recognizing a trial judge’s discretion to remove “disruptive, contumacious, stubbornly defiant defendants”); See Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 454, 32 S.Ct. 250, 56 L.Ed. 500 (1912) (indicating that right can be waived by the voluntary absence of the defendant); United States v. Gunter, 631 F.2d 583, 589 (8th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>); Glouser v. United States, 296 F.2d 853, 855
holding that where defendants counsel objected to the trial judges evidentiary rulings in evidentiary hearing but did not object to the defendants absence any claim of error due to defendants absence had been waived holding evidentiary rulings are subject to harmless error analysis holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing holding that evidentiary rulings are subject to harmless error renew holding brief hearing not part of trial proper in defendants absence subject to harmless error standard