In prosecution on charge of drug distribution conspiracy that involved death of one victim and serious bodily harm of two others, Dist. Ct. did not violate Rule 43 by starting trial without defendant's presence in courtroom. Dist. Ct. satisfied Rule 43, where record showed that after defendant had refused to come to courtroom, Dist. Ct. came to defendant in jail with counsel and court reporter to start trial on day of scheduled trial. Ct. rejected defendant's argument that his trial must begin in courtroom, and defendant's repeated refusals to come to courtroom for his trial constituted implied waiver of his right to appear at his trial. Ct. further noted that prior to trial, defendant had refused to accept order compelling his attendance, and that after trial had started, defendant repeatedly refused to tell Dist. Ct. if he would attend trial cooperatively, instead of protesting that he did not understand charges. Fact that 50 witnesses had been assembled to testify at trial also supported Dist. Ct.'s decision to proceed to trial.
