It is a fundamental principle of the law of criminal procedure in every civilized community that the trial of an accused must take place in his presence, and that the court’s verdict and its imposition of sentence must also be announced in his presence. Thus, an accused must be physically present at the trial so that he can participate in a meaningful and informed manner in the criminal proceedings instituted against him. The accused’s other rights such as the right to put his case, the right to understand and the right to confrontation are dependent on his right to be present at the trial. Therefore, an accused’s presence at the trial is fundamental to the accused effectively exercising his rights to defend. The rationale for an accused’s presence is that the public has an interest in the outcome of the case. The accused’s presence is not only important to establish the factual circumstances of the case. It also enables the court to correctly assess the accused’s personality and character. Consequently, the accused’s ability to influence the court’s decision on the criminal charges brought against him as a result of his presence is also important. Therefore, there exists a public and individual interest rationale underlying the need for the accused’s presence during the hearing or the proceedings. However, the right to be present at trial is not an absolute right. Rather, a trial will be conducted in default for various reasons and for the interest of the public. It is a requirement of any legal system to decide its cases quickly. If the punishment serves any purpose (deterrence, rehabilitation or retribution), it makes no sense to postpone its application without a sound reason. The sooner it is applied, the more efficient it becomes. Second, the trial, which is the only legal way to apply a punishment, would not function properly if the cases are decided long after the criminal conduct. Witnesses tend to forget about past actions, some of them will move out of the city, and records will get lost. In sum, it becomes more difficult for both the government and the defendant to collect evidence. Finally, if society has a legitimate interest in the resolution of criminal cases, it is obvious that a delay in trial and punishment does not help to fortify the confidence of the people in the judicial system. One way to avoid these negative consequences is a trial in absentia. Because, Trial in Absentia helps to prevent the defendants from manipulating the judicial system. This paper will analyze how the balance between trials in absentia and the right to defend is maintaining in Ethiopia in general and in west Gojam in particular. The researcher in this paper will deeply discuss the Ethiopian legal frameworks on the area and will assess the practice in west Gojam.