Trials in absentia in noncapital cases differ markedly from those in capital cases. Little discussion has focused on capital defendants who escape before trial begins and remain absent during the trial and sentencing proceedings. In noncapital cases, defendants who escape during the trial or who are physically removed from the courtroom because of misconduct are generally regarded as voluntarily absent, although many courts do not automatically conduct trial in absentia. If trial in absentia in capital cases is to be upheld, the court must find that the capital defendant waived the right to be present. If traditional waiver rules apply, the waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Applying these standards, it is arguable that such a waiver would be hard to establish in the case of the capital defendant who escapes before the trial beings. It is unlikely that most such defendants are informed of their right to attend the trial and that the trial can proceed even if they escape. In addition, procedures acceptable in ordinary criminal cases are not necessarily permissible when a capital sentence is possible. The defendant's absence increases the chances that the decision will be based on inaccurate or incomplete information. When the issues of speedy trial, accuracy in factfinding, and administrative convenience are considered, it is clear that postponement of the escapee's trial is the best decision. A total of 66 footnotes are supplied.