dissenting, with whom NEBEKER, Associate Judge, and YEAGLEY, Associate Judge, Retired, concur:
The precise issue posed in the instant case is whether the experienced and conscientious trial judge committed reversible error in his conduct of the voir dire of the prospective jurors prior to the commencement of appellant’s trial.
Preliminarily, I note the Supreme Court’s recent reminder that “the [voir dire] process is to ensure a fair impartial jury, not a favorable one.” Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 819, 824, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 n. 9 (1984). I also note the general rule in this jurisdiction “that the method and manner of conducting voir dire are left to the discretion of the trial judge.” United States v. Bryant, 153 U.S.App.D.C. 72, 76, 471 F.2d 1040, 1044 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1112, 93 S.Ct. 923, 34 L.Ed.2d 693 (1973). In my view the able trial judge balanced the request by appellant “[t]o be present during voir dire at the bench,” with the need to assure the comfort and security of the jurors and correctly denied such request.1
The trial judge’s comment in denying such request by appellant is instructive:
There are some obvious practical difficulties with that situation. The first one is this. Jurors are, my experience teaches me, alarmed even at the thought that defendants in criminal trials may be looking at a jury list that gives their identity. Jurors, as human beings, I believe would be at least very uncomfortable in a situation where they are face to face with a person who is going to be on trial while they are revealing intimate things about themselves. That’s the only reason they would be at the bench.
If, as happened in my courtroom in a case that at the last moment did not go forward to trial, if there are a number of defendants — in that case there were four, three of whom were in custody, so that we have a situation where there were four defendants, three marshals, four defense attorneys and, in that case, two prosecutors. And with a request that we be with the defendants at the bench, it would have been impossible. And indeed, it would have been a security problem, additionally. But it would have been physically impossible to do it.
When reviewing the trial court’s exercise of discretion in conducting voir dire in the instant case I am constrained to summarize the “intimate things” which the prospective jurors revealed on the record about their families and themselves to court and coun*1146sel at the bench.2 The revelations of the prospective jurors fell into two categories: in one category were the jurors who revealed that they or members of their family had been arrested and in some cases imprisoned; and, in the other category where those jurors who revealed that they or members of their family had been victims of crime.
Thus, jurors in the first category variously answered that a brother had “been arrested”; a son “was serving time” for larceny; a son was awaiting sentence for armed robbery; a brother had been arrested for stealing checks from his father; a husband had been arrested for disturbing the peace; a husband was serving a sentence for unauthorized use of a vehicle; a juror was himself awaiting trial on an unlawful auto possession charge; a daughter had been arrested for shoplifting; and, a “mentally disturbed” daughter had been charged with the death of another.
Jurors in the second category variously answered that a daughter had been raped at night by an unknown assailant with a knife; a brother had been robbed at gunpoint; a brother had been assaulted with a knife; a brother had been killed in an unstated crime; a brother had been killed by a sawed-off shotgun during a robbery; a mother had been robbed; and, three jurors had themselves been victims of burglaries.
One majority of the court concludes that the trial court, despite the fact that it conducted the voir dire described above in conformity with the practice here for some 15 years,3 violated Super.Ct.Crim.R. 43. I do not see how this can be. The Rule requires that a defendant be present at the time of the arraignment, the plea, the return of the verdict and the imposition of sentence, and “at every stage of the trial including impaneling the jury.” The Rule rests upon the constitutional proposition that an accused must be permitted to be present in the courtroom in order to confront his accusers. 8B M. Waxner, M. Eisenstein, Moore’s Federal Practice, II43.-02 (2d ed. 1984). It is undisputed in the instant case that appellant was “present” in the courtroom during the impaneling of the jury, thus satisfying not only the express terms of the Rule but also the oft-cited dictum by the Supreme Court that “after indictment ... nothing shall be done in the absence of the prisoner.” Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 372, 13 S.Ct. 136, 137, 36 L.Ed. 1011 (1892).
The majority does not disagree. Rather, it asserts, citing only to the controversial Robinson decision,4 that the phrase in the Rule “at every stage of the trial” encom*1147passes the bench conference which the court and counsel held here with each prospective juror to determine if such juror should be struck for cause. And the majority further asserts that the term “present” in the Rule means that the defendant must be within both eye and earshot of each prospective juror as she or he told intimate things to the judge and attorneys at the bench. But, as I read Rule 43, it expressly excludes from its coverage “conferences” between the court and counsel on “questions of law.” 8B M. Waxner, M. Eisenstein, Moore’s Federal Practice, U 43.02[2] (2d ed. 1984). The purpose of the court’s conference at the bench with counsel in the instant case was to determine the legal question of whether or not each prospective juror should be dismissed for cause. The following colloquy exemplifies the purpose of such bench conference.
THE COURT: Ms. Jackson?
A JUROR: That’s right. I was a witness to seeing my cousin get killed by the police.
THE COURT: You saw your cousin get killed?
A JUROR: Three months ago. And a friend last month.
THE COURT: What were the circumstances that your cousin was killed?
A JUROR: My cousin was running from the police and got shot in the back of the head.
THE COURT: And you saw that happen?
A JUROR: Yes. And my friend — you have to excuse me. It was a traffic violation and him and the police got in a fight, and he knocked the police out. The police came to, and all he did was pull his revolver and shot up at him and shot him three times in the chest. He died instantly.
THE COURT: Do you think given those experiences that you could sit on a case like this?
A JUROR: (Shakes head no.) No, sir. THE COURT: I’ll excuse you. You can go back to the juror’s lounge.
The majority, apparently recognizing that its construction of Rule 43 is strained,5 adopts as a further rationale for the result it seeks that appellant should have been at the bench during the voir dire proceedings described above “so that he may effectively exercise his preemptory challenges.” Significantly, the majority explains that “it is improbable to expect a lawyer to be able to relate ... impressions gained at the bench to his client.” Hence, says the majority, there is “the need for the defendant to be present where a prospective juror is being examined so that his impressions may be gained first hand.”
But what a topsy-turvy result is reached by the majority! Those prospective jurors who have intimate things to reveal to the court and counsel, such as the fact that a daughter has been raped or a daughter who is mentally disturbed has been charged with another’s death, are required to stand cheek by jowl with the defendant so that he may presumably hear the tremor in the juror’s voice or see the tear in the juror’s eye as each reveals these personal tragedies. According to the majority, these wrenching revelations are necessary so that the defendant himself can determine whether these prospective jurors *1148should be peremptorily challenged later on in the proceedings. In contrast, all the other prospective jurors on the venire who have nothing of a sensitive nature to reveal about their families or themselves are kept away altogether from the defendant and he is therefore denied the advantage the majority purports to find in having him view the first group of prospective jurors at a kind of mini-lineup.
Put another way, the result of the majority’s holding is to give to the defendant the chance to view the body language of the jurors he and his counsel know the most about anyway, viz., that such jurors have been victims of crime or charged with crime, and give the defendant no opportunity to know anything at all about the jurors who have nothing of a sensitive nature to reveal.
The majority, apparently recognizing what a sensitive nerve it has touched, hastens to proclaim that it “cannot be insensitive to, or unmindful of, the comfort or the security of persons who perform a public service in the administration of justice.” Accordingly, the majority suggests to the trial court “alternative procedures” to the “cheek by jowl” procedure it has earlier in its opinion mandated. Specifically, the majority’s suggestions are: (1) the use of closed circuit television; (2) holding the “personal” portions of voir dire in the judge’s chambers or the jury room where presumably the prospective jurors may be distanced somewhat from the defendant while they reveal “intimate things” about their families and themselves; and (3) “holding the entire voir dire in open court as was once the traditional practice....”
The shortcomings of these alternative procedures the majority suggests to the trial court are readily apparent: holding the entire voir dire in open court was abandoned 15 years ago, see United States v. Ridley, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 79, 412 F.2d 1126 (1969), because of the potential for prejudice to a defendant from having a number of jurors recite in the open courtroom a litany of crimes they had suffered. The use of closed circuit television, while having a superficial “Star Wars” appeal, is burdensome to the already-complicated and time-consuming criminal trial. Finally, while there may be some physical distancing if the process is held in the judge’s chambers or a jury room, this does not still the uneasiness which the experienced trial judge in the instant case described:
Jurors, as human beings ... would be at least uncomfortable in a situation where they are face to face with a person who is going on trial while they are revealing intimate things about themselves.
And equally important, this process would necessarily be held outside of the courtroom, and hence not be a public proceeding, thus raising a serious First Amendment question. Press-Enterprise Co., supra.
This majority of the court concludes that (1) there is no constitutional right for a defendant to be present at the bench during the personal portion of the voir dire and asserts that (2) it has chosen “not to adopt a rule whereby violations of Rule 43(a) would automatically mandate reversal.” Instead, this majority has decided “to examine each case on ‘an ad hoc basis.’ ”
Given these acknowledgements by this majority I would have thought that the trial court could make use of its own considerable experience and “otherwise” provide a procedure as it is specifically empowered to do under Rule 43. However, the other majority of the court has precluded the trial court from using its expertise and promulgating a rule to deal with the situation. This is because the other majority embraces the startling proposition that ever since Ridley courts of the District of Columbia have conducted voir dire without according the defendant “fundamental fairness.” In this connection I note the Supreme Court’s recent admonition:
To preserve fairness and at the same time protect legitimate privacy, a trial judge must at all times maintain control of the process of jury selection and should inform the array of prospective jurors, once the general nature of sensi*1149tive questions is made known to them, that those individuals believing public questioning will prove damaging because of embarrassment, may properly request an opportunity to present the problem to the judge in camera but with counsel present and on the record.
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, supra, 104 S.Ct. at 825. I deem it significant that nowhere does the Court suggest that the defendant be present at such an in camera proceeding as long as it is held on the record with counsel present.
I fail to see why the other majority creates this conflict of constitutional magnitude between the prospective juror’s right to privacy and the defendant’s right to hear and see such juror reveal intimate things about himself or herself and his or her family. For some 15 years, courts here have followed the existing practice that the defense counsel is able to share with the defendant the crucial information about each prospective juror who goes to the bench, viz., that the juror has been victimized by a crime or has committed a crime, as well as any other tactical matter. Indeed, I note the trial judge’s comment to defense counsel in the instant case:
It is my practice, and a practice that I will follow during this voir dire, to allow counsel to leave the bench and communicate with his client at anytime he wishes to do so to give him any information that you feel is relevant for him to have and for you to discuss with him. (Emphasis added.)
In the final analysis, I think this court must balance the minimal benefit to the defendant of viewing and hearing each prospective juror who goes to the bench to reveal “intimate things” about family and self in order to enable counsel and court to determine if there is any cause to remove such juror from the panel against the prejudice to such jurors — citizens who are hauled into court under threat of civil contempt, and expect and are entitled, to some protection as they render service to their community. I would affirm the trial court, and reaffirm the practice followed in the District of Columbia courts since Ridley, providing a protection jurors expect and are entitled to.
I also would hope that the citizens of this community who are called to jury service will assert and pursue, aided by our public-spirited Bar, their legitimate expectation of privacy when they are confronted on voir dire with “sensitive questions,” as was the case here.6
I respectfully dissent.
. Mr. Justice Blackmun has pointed out that trial judges, among other things, have "discretion to limit voir dire to protect juror safety." Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 819, 826 n. 1, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984) (Blackmun, J., concurring).
. The court, after first introducing to the panel the attorneys and all the witnesses and asking if any of the prospective jurors knew the persons introduced, had then stated:
I’d like to know whether you or any immediate member of your own family has, in the last ten years, been ... either the witness to a crime or arrested for a crime or the victim of a crime.... If you have a yes answer to any . part ... please stand up _ And would those of you who do have a yes answer please form a line in the center aisle.
Thereafter, the court and counsel questioned in turn at the bench each juror to determine if there was cause to remove her or him from the panel.
. Thus, the experienced trial judge explained in denying the request of appellant’s counsel for appellant to stand with the prospective jurors at the bench:
I have been involved in litigation in this jurisdiction since 1968 ... and all of it was criminal litigation.... In all of that time, in every single case that I was a participant or an observer in or of — it takes two different prepositions there — voir dire was conducted when at the bench without the defendant being present. Indeed, I do not know of any due process or constitutional right or necessity for a Defendant to be present at the bench during such proceedings.
. Robinson v. United States, 448 A.2d 853 (D.C.1982). This decision produced an evenly-divided court on whether to rehear en banc.
I note that the trial judge in declining the request of defense counsel commented:
Hit's a very difficult situation for a judge, especially a judge who believes in principles of stare decisis — and I certainly do — to confront a situation where his legal opinion is that a panel of a Court of Appeals has reached an erroneous conclusion.
******
[Wjhen the judge is in the dilemma that I am in ... it is appropriate to limit the case to its facts....
*1147Interestingly, the trial court’s action here seems less drastic than that followed in Arnold v. United States, 358 A.2d 335 (D.C.1976) (en banc), where “the trial court defied established precedent" by refusing "to give the instruction on corroboration mandated by the case law," id. at 341, because the court could "see no reason under the sun in this day and age" to do so. Id. at 339.
. The trial judge commented succinctly in assessing the reading of Rule 43 by the Division in Robinson:
If one were to look at the logic of that opinion, I guess one would have to conclude that if that panel is right, then the Defendant would also have a right to be present at every bench conference during a trial, for I can glean no distinction between bench conferences at voir dire and bench conferences during the trial itself concerning what the court found as an extension of the Defendant’s right to be present at the bench as a corollary of his right to be present at the trial.
. In this connection I note the concurring opinion by Mr. Justice Blackmun in Press-Enterprise, supra 104 S.Ct. at 826:
Certainly, a juror has a valid interest in not being required to disclose to all the world highly personal or embarrassing information simply because he is called to do his public duty. We need not decide, however, whether a juror, called upon to answer questions posed to him in court during voir dire, has a legitimate expectation, rising to the status of a privacy right, that he will not have to answer those questions.
I suggest that a juror's assertion of the right to answer highly personal questions during voir dire on the record but out of the hearing of all except the court and the attorneys is a right of privacy that should be vindicated in an appropriate proceeding.