v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 158-59 (187[8]). Id. at 62. ¶ 38. Reynolds was one of the first federal decisions to elaborate on the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine. In Reynolds, the defendant, George Reynolds, claimed that his right to confront a witness was violated when the lower court admitted into evidence testimony that was given at a former trial for the same offense with the same parties but under another indictment. Reynolds, 98 U.S. at 153. The witness, who was the alleged second wife of the accused, testified at a former trial against Reynolds. Id. at 160. At the former trial, the accused was present during her testimony and given the full opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Id. at 161. Prior to and after the commencement of the second trial, an officer attem (<HOLDING>). ¶ 41. The Eighth Circuit appears to be the
holding that a defendant did not waive his right to be present at an ex parte encounter between the judge and juror because he was not present at the time of the communication and therefore had no opportunity to object when the error was committed holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present holding that a defendant can lose his right to be present at trial if after a warning by the judge he continues his disruptive behavior holding that the failure by a criminal defendant to invoke his right to be present  at a conference which he knows is taking place between the judge and a juror in chambers constitutes a valid waiver of that right holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his postadjudication sentence because he did not object at trial or present his motion for new trial