I have no problem with this 67-page opinion, which (among other things) holds that it was okay to receive the jury's verdict during the COVID-19 pandemic without the defendant being present when the defendant had COVID-19, was quarantined in jail, and wouldn't be out of quarantine and able to be transported to court for at least two weeks. That's a sufficient reason to depart from the requirement that the defendant be physically present at all stages of a trial, particularly when there's nothing that the defendant could have accomplished by being there at that point.
I just want to add, however, that this result is okay (in my view) only if you're not a textualist. The California Constitution says very clearly that criminal defendants have the right to be "personally present" in court. Full stop. No exceptions. So if you think that unambiguous text is dispositive, there you have it. You have to be willing to be consistent, and suck up the consequences.
