issue is some plea whether the middle sort of supreme court's decision is contrary to clearly establish federal law kind of simple there are two you know supreme court decisions that i was going to talk about today well  they make it very clear on what we're supposed to do well or has a task the task clearly was not performed in this case in fact by coincidence any came up with an interesting scenario about triviality or administrative but the interesting thing about that is when you read  the explanation and pressley in the new rule the test isn't well or the explanation it's a presley and the test is it doesn't matter about administrate of or triviality what matters is testifies at how long it is now where this is this is the th day of trial  and the surprise in this case because i tried the case on the th their trial all sudden without any notice the trial judge said we're going to close the courtroom doors and i was surprised by that because i was not prepared for and i told the judge i just nicely as i could i don't think you can do that i think this is a public facility this is not your home judge and you can't just close the courtroom door at least you got to give me some notice of it and you got to notify the press the people outside the courtroom was hugely populated by the media and family in the courtroom so packed with people who were delivering the tickets away for people who wanted to come into the courtroom and watch the trial because they didn't have room for everybody and everybody from t v to radio to newspapers were there this is a public forum and this should have been a public trial and why what he did didn't make any sense and judged ton of times before he says he's confused and he thought it was done backwards it doesn't make any sense now i know judge state supreme court in how many i was confused by judge henderson and how he thought it was just backwards it didn't make any sense now the interesting thing is that you know supreme court i'm here to argue for the u s supreme court that's very rare for criminal defense lawyers do for me to be here and talk about the you sprint court laws now that they have come down with pressley the decision is clear pressley only appears to well or well or just sets out the test straus as in the supreme court of the state of minnesota i'm sure the county attorney who asked for outside counsel can prosecute the case and have a new trial it's not like he's getting something for free there were some words that were bothering me when i read it judge ton of times order he's not supposed to get something for nothing that's not what this is about nobody is getting something for nothing if anything what he would do it is a new trial and that doesn't necessarily mean that we know what the outcome of the new trial would be it's going to be another jury and they would have to make that decision that doesn't necessarily give him a guarantee as to the outcome i don't know that none of us know that but what he had in the courtroom is an unfair federally mandated issue that came up then what judge anderson did the compound it is he said well you can't bring in the previous burglaries through the two victims you can do that through examination of the police but there are two other witnesses who participated in the burglaries korda kaspar in show secret so now we ha questions about the two burglaries because that went directly to the state of mind the mr smith that doesn't really appear to anything i have to argue today i'm just throwing it out for your consideration so you understand where i'm coming from tribune wrote a friend of the court brief and what they have been saying in the appellate level is that whether it's a st amendment or six of them and they're the same for analysis for you searing whether it's sentence saying you've got to leave those courtroom doors open the irony is after this trial they all want their own this was a very lengthy opinion and they all wrote different things and strauss that you all write their own separate opinion there was opinion of the court and there was a separate concurrence that's also a contrary view supreme court precedent i do so we would have to adopt that view i think i think now the minnesota court relied on that circuit and said i think it no longer applies now that well or has been substantiated by our case at the u s supreme court the other circuits don't apply we have to apply for you the supreme court what they say the war was and the rule is it doesn't matter how where in the trial it is or how long it is of the trial it's and that's what recognition that john's time and i made that one of the problems we have is the scarcity of supreme court decisions on a public trial directly it's but he we talk about him and he talks about administrative it talks about whether or not it's trivial but the courts say that the supreme court says defense of self defense he was they broke into his home by smashing the window climbing into that through the smashed window and then confronting him in his basement they didn't have to go down the stairway to confront him in the basement but they chose to and all that goes to know is whether or not he intended this he had every right in his own home to please the court my name is brett whitener and i represent michelle smith ward in minnesota correctional facility opar crites i don't intend to go into the facts of this case unless a court has questions counsel did bring out facts that are not challenge before this court and his petition i'll rely on the minnesota supreme court decision and their fact finding since it's not a matter before this court other than to say we are asking this court to affirm the district court's an aisle of mr smith's haber's corpus petition we have three points to make with regards to this fact st and most importantly a palace request is an attempt to expand the public trial right beyond supreme court precedent and such a request fails under the deferential treatment second appellants request to expand this public trial right is in the wrong posture for this case he's asking this court to expand that r that should be brought under a direct review of the matter and not under the differential standard of a d p a and finally even if the deferential standard of the a t p a did not apply in this case the the most egregious constitutional violation cases this case before the court does not meet this high threshold and for the year importantly both of those cases were direct reviews they weren't subject to the high deferential standard i've been assuming the whole case i'll ask you i soon short was not in state versus smith minnesota supreme court case correct thank when it was decided so it was after both significantly it's it wasn't under be a d p a but the court found that there was a trial public trial right attached to sentencing when it made that determination it under the supreme court precedent for this court went further in that case and looked and decided that even though a public trial right attached at the sentencing hearing and it wasn't found in  decided that the laggard factors didn't apply to a partial closure again this court looked at supreme court precedents could not find it on point with regards to a partial koshare and therefore decided that the one hour factor stephen apply again well is not absolute but you agree this is a complete closure right this is a full closure case this is a physical closure of the court room f partial right but there's not yes yes i do but when you look at that decision and you compare it to the supreme court precedent and the highly deferential standard clear that there is no absolute rule that the minnesota supreme court under the deferential standard enable to go ahead and look at its own precedents of decide whether to talking about the minnesota supreme court found that it was an administrative hearing and compared to our bench conference or discussion outside the what court room what did it deprive the public burnished full hearing that happened days before this proceeding the court ultimately issued in a written order those names were public those names were out there this was our i discussion that was a north dakota i believe that was in a circuit review of a north dakota supreme court decision they found there was no public trial violation and a partial closure chase and it was a two thousand and my time very well thank you for your argument thank you i think mr mesh pressure used all of his time in the opening segment the cube used of your time well you you have something you