While defendants have a Constitutional right to face their accusers, I don't know if victims have a right to face the accused in a courtroom. I rather doubt it. Trials aren't held for the benefit of victims per se. Trials are held for the benefit of society as a whole. While trials in absentia are not common and often are not permitted,
"..the Constitution itself does not prohibit trial from being commenced in defendant's absence so long as defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives his right to be present.” in absentia
This, the defendant appears to hold all the "Constitutional cards" in that regard
In my post, I wasn't suggesting a one-size-fits-all solution to prevent juries from being swayed by the defendant's appearance or demeanor. In fact, I wasn't suggesting a solution at all. I was responding to the argument that jurors are told to consider only the evidence presented in court and so they wouldn't be affected by BK's appearance/demeanor. I find it ludicrous to think that. And I find it equally ludicrous to think that any effect appearance/demeanor did have can be easily removed by instructing jurors to ignore those factors. We know that's not true. People are often affected at an unconscious or pre-conscious level. And we know jurors may may be affected by other kinds of non-evidentiary material when rendering a decision. We do have some methods to try to offset those other effects (such as changes of venue, sequestration, prohibition of jail garb if the jury will be present, and so on.)
MOO
