In the 1896 case of Starr v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's right to be present at their trial is not absolute and can be waived under certain circumstances. The case involved Charles Starr who was convicted for murder in Arizona Territory but claimed his rights were violated because he was forcibly removed from court after disruptive behavior. He argued this denied him his constitutional right to face witnesses against him and participate in his defense. However, the Supreme Court disagreed stating that while a defendant has a right to be present at their trial, they also have an obligation not to disrupt proceedings or make it impossible for the court to proceed with its business in an orderly manner. Therefore, if a defendant behaves disruptively after being warned by the judge about such conduct, they may forfeit their right to remain in court during proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Starr v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow a jury instruction stating that mere presence at the scene of a crime could be sufficient evidence of aiding and abetting was fundamentally flawed. He contended this ruling would unjustly broaden criminal liability, potentially implicating innocent bystanders who happened to be present during a crime but did not actively participate or encourage it in any way. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how such an interpretation might lead to abuses by prosecutors and misinterpretations by juries about what constitutes complicity in a crime. In his view, there should always be clear proof of active participation or encouragement before someone can be found guilty as an accomplice.