Judge says Tree of Life defendant does not have to appear in court to be questioned on his waiver of rights

A federal judge on Wednesday denied a request by prosecutors to require the man accused of killing 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Squirrel Hill to appear in court to be questioned about his right to a speedy trial.

Members of the team prosecuting Robert Bowers asked U.S. District Judge Robert Colville in April to require the defendant to appear in court to ensure that he is aware of the rights that he is waiving to avoid later claims on appeal.

In a motion filed on the issue in May, the government said that Bowers, 49, has never appeared in federal district court in person or via teleconference, though he did appear early in the case in magistrate’s court.

He is accused of committing a mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue — which housed three congregations — on Wilkins Avenue in Squirrel Hill on Oct. 27, 2018. He was arrested on the scene and faces a possible death sentence if convicted.

At each proceeding in the case in U.S. District Court, his attorneys have waived his right to be present.

None of the waivers, prosecutors noted, included any written document signed by the defendant.

“The United States respectfully submits that, given the gravity of this capital case and the extensive time that has passed, it is prudent and appropriate to confirm with Robert Bowers himself that he understands the rights that he has been waiving through counsel (including his rights to be present, to a Speedy Trial, to attend an evidentiary hearing regarding his statements, and to conclude his review of the physical evidence),” the government wrote.

Further, they said they were not questioning defense counsel’s competence or candor, but only wanted to assure the court and the public that Bowers’ waivers have been “knowing, intelligent and voluntary.”

Defense attorneys, however, objected, noting that prosecutors had asked the same thing of Senior U.S. District Judge Donetta Ambrose, who presided over the case until her retirement earlier this year.

“While it is clear that the government dislikes the lapse in time between Mr. Bowers’ prior court appearances and today, that has no bearing — legally or otherwise — on the validity of his waivers,” the defense wrote in response. “The court should reject the government’s renewed attempt to intrude into the attorney-client relationship and seek Mr. Bowers’ retrospective on the record agreement to waivers that have already been confirmed on the record by counsel or that are clearly within the province of counsel to make.”

Colville agreed with the defense, writing in his order Wednesday that an in-person appearance and colloquy are neither warranted nor required.

“Defense counsel have repeatedly impressed upon this court their deep appreciation and understanding of their obligations to the court and the defendant, and there exists no basis to question defense counsel’s representations,” he said.