v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 n. 15, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). Furthermore, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(a) mandates that “[t]he defendant shall be present ... at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict.” Although stemming from the Constitution, this rule includes common-law rights and is broader than the protection provided in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. See United States v. Brown, 571 F.2d 980, 986 (6th Cir.1978). Rule 43(b) and (c) lists exceptions to the presence-of-the-defendant rule. The two incidents in this case do not fall within these exceptions. In fact, temporary exclusions of defendants during aspects of the impaneling of the jury have been held to constitute error. See Brown, 571 F.2d at 986 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861, 872-73
holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation holding that a conference discussing the dismissal of a juror outside of the presence of the defendant violated rule 43a but was not a constitutional violation holding that the defendants presence at an in camera conference between the judge defense counsel and a juror regarding the jurors possible bias while not constitutionally mandated was required by rule 43 holding that the district courts dismissal of a juror after five weeks of deliberations violated the defendants right to a unanimous jury because the record evidence suggested the juror found the evidence insufficient for a conviction holding that defendant acquiesced in inchambers conference occurring in his absence when trial court discussed the subject of the conference and its ruling and neither defense counsel nor defendant raised an objection