Smith v. Smith

Background

Byron David Smith was serving two life sentences in a Minnesota state prison after being convicted of two first-degree murders. Smith argued that the Minnesota trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial by clearing all spectators and the press from the courtroom for a brief proceeding before opening statements. The trial court closed the courtroom to explain the limits of evidence about prior burglaries and to prevent the information from reaching jurors through media coverage. Three minutes after filing a public order on the evidentiary issue, the trial court reopened the courtroom.

The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld Smith’s convictions. It ruled that the proceeding was administrative in nature and therefore did not implicate the Sixth Amendment public-trial right. Smith then filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asking the federal court to overturn that decision. The magistrate judge recommended denying the petition, and Smith objected.

Legal standard

The court reviewed Smith’s petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, or AEDPA. Under AEDPA, a federal court generally may not grant relief on a federal claim decided by a state court unless the state court’s decision was contrary to clearly established United States Supreme Court law or unreasonably applied that law. A decision is not objectively unreasonable merely because it is wrong; it must be beyond reasonable disagreement among fair-minded judges.

The Supreme Court’s Waller decision requires four findings before a trial court closes a criminal proceeding: an overriding interest likely to be harmed, a closure no broader than necessary, consideration of reasonable alternatives, and adequate findings supporting the closure. The Supreme Court’s Presley decision states that courts must apply this test before excluding the public from any stage of a criminal trial.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that the Minnesota trial court’s complete closure failed the Waller test. The trial court did not consider alternatives to closing the courtroom, relied on a speculative concern that jurors might see media reports, gave reasoning that supported keeping the courtroom open rather than closed, and did not make the required findings before the closure. The information the trial court sought to keep from jurors was also already public.

The court nevertheless denied federal habeas relief. It concluded that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision was neither contrary to clearly established federal law nor an objectively unreasonable application of that law. The court said the Supreme Court’s decisions did not categorically foreclose Minnesota’s rule concerning administrative proceedings, and AEDPA required the federal court to apply the state court’s decision with substantial deference. The court also concluded that, assuming Minnesota’s legal rules were not incorrect, applying them to this short, transcribed evidentiary proceeding was not objectively unreasonable.

The court said Smith had made a substantial showing that his constitutional right to a public trial was denied and that reasonable judges could debate the issues. It therefore granted a certificate of appealability, which permits an appeal of the habeas issues, but it did not grant habeas relief.

Disposition

The court overruled Smith’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation to the extent consistent with the opinion, denied Smith’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court also granted a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).