draw negative conclusions regarding Carse’s behavior and his absence from trial. Therefore, the original venire was replaced with a new panel. 3 . Carse does not claim that he was involuntarily absent at any point during the trial. “Clearly, a defendant bears the burden of showing that his or her absence from trial was involuntary. That burden is a heavy one to meet, and rightly so.” Cassidy, 567 N.W.2d at 710. Absent an argument to the contrary, we conclude that Carse was voluntarily absent from his trial. 4 . It should be noted, however, that a district court is not required to accept a defendant's waiver of his right to be present and, particularly where identity is at issue, a defendant may be required to be present. See United States v. Moore, 466 F.2d 547, 547 (3d. Cir. 1972) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Rourke was decided after briefing but
holding that the district court did not err by refusing to allow the defendant to absent himself from the trial at which his identification would be an integral issue holding that trial court did not err holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to give the defendants tendered instruction regarding the voluntariness of his confession holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the withdrawal of the juiy trial waiver holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give charge because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his requested charge was tailored to the evidence