confronting witnesses or evidence against him.” United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526, 105 S.Ct. 1482, 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985) (citations omitted). The defendants’ constitutional claim here is therefore properly brought under the Fifth Amendment, not the Sixth Amendment, because the challenged events occurred before any witnesses or evidence were brought against the defendants. Under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant “has a [constitutional] right to be present at all stages of the trial where his absence might frustrate the fairness of the proceedings.” Fare th Cir.1996) (recognizing the Rule 43 right to presence for all portions of the voir dire), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1253, 117 S.Ct. 2414, 138 L.Ed.2d 179 (1997); United States v. Alessandretto, 637 F.2d 131, 138 (3d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 949, 101 S.Ct. 2031,
holding that the extent to which parties may examine prospective jurors on voir dire lies within the trial judges discretion holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice holding that trial court not required to conduct a voir dire on counsels unsubstantiated suspicion where issue was whether jurors had overheard any part of a bench conversation holding that absence of defendants from part of voir dire discussing trial publicity with prospective jurors was error under rule 43