to remake the record for review, or to allow second guesses on trial strategy.” Waletzko v. Herdegen, 226 N.W.2d 648, 653 (N.D.1975). While he did not specifically raise it as an issue, Klem has asserted that he: “was excluded from the very bench conference at which the prosecution alleges he waived his objection to exclusion of the public. He objected. He relied on his attorney to pass on the objection. Does he now forfeit that objection because of a secret proceeding held in his absence?” Rule 43, N.D.R.Crim.P., generally provides that a defendant has a right to be present at every stage of his trial. We have said that a defendant in a criminal trial also has a constitutional right to be present at every stage of the proceedings against him. State v. Iverson, 187 N.W.2d 1 (N.D.1971) (<HOLDING>). But cf. United States v. Williams, 455 F.2d
holding that it was error though harmless to exclude the defendant from inchamber conferences holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony holding that it was harmless error for the trial court to exclude testimony regarding other insolvent companies holding exclusion was harmless error holding it was error to include language from geesa but such error was harmless