ill. A default having previously been entered against Aghion, he proceeded to trial pro se solely on the issue of damages. Aghion now claims he was not present at trial because he was out of the country and never received the notice of trial even though one was sent. He argues that, as he was not present at trial through no fault of his own, he did not have the opportunity of stipulating to a five-member jury or knowingly waiving his right to a six-member jury either when the subject came up during voir dire or at the time of the stipulation between the other defendants. As Aghion did not have the opportunity of exhibiting such a knowing waiver, we must find, based on the case law, that he is entitled to a new trial on the issue of damages. See Blair v. State, 698 So.2d 1210 (Fla.1997) (<HOLDING>); Fla. Fertilizer & Mfg. Co. v. Boswell, 45
holding that a defendants waiver of the right to testify must be knowing informed and intelligent recognizing requirement of knowing intelligent waiver holding a waiver of a substantial constitutional right must be a voluntary knowing and intelligent act holding that the constitutional right to a sixmember jury may be waived by a knowing and intelligent waiver holding that under the sixth amendment a criminal defendant may waive his right to counsel if that waiver is knowing intelligent and voluntary