The fate of whether Byron Smith, a convicted killer, gets a new trial is now in the hands of a federal magistrate judge.

Smith, 68, was convicted by a jury in Morrison County District Court of first-degree murder in the shooting deaths of Haile Kifer and Nick Brady, who broke into his home in Little Falls on Thanksgiving Day, Nov. 22, 2012. Smith was sentenced to two concurrent life sentences, without the possibility of parole. Smith's case received national attention with debate over how far a homeowner may go to defend himself and his property.

In March, Steven Meshbesher, attorney for Smith, filed paperwork with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to seek a new trial. Meshbesher argued Morrison County District Judge Douglas Anderson violated federal law when he closed the courtroom during Smith's murder trial in April of 2014 to discuss the district court's ruling on a pretrial evidentiary issue.

Meshbesher filed a writ of habeas corpus, the next step after losing the Minnesota State Supreme Court of Appeals decision to uphold Smith's life sentence without parole. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order used to bring a prisoner before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful.

On March 31, Peter Orput, Washington County attorney, who prosecuted the case, responded to Meshbesher's habeas corpus petition and asked the court to deny it on the grounds that his claims fail to establish a federal constitutional violation. The federal magistrate judge issued an order that gave the state 30 days to respond to Smith's appeal; and then Meshbesher had 30 days to respond to the state's arguments.

In the federal court documents, the attorneys argued several points regarding whether the Sixth Amendment was violated. These arguments are now in the hands of the federal magistrate judge, who will make a decision. There is no deadline for how long the judge has to make a decision, Meshbesher said. It is at the judge's discretion.

Orput submitted his response to Smith's appeal on April 5, and stated Meshbesher "has failed to provide rebuttal evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the state court ruling was contrary to clearly established federal law or unreasonable in light of the evidence previously presented. The petition is without merit and it should be denied."

His memorandum stated the habeas corpus should be denied and dismissed without a hearing. Meshbesher filed his memorandum reply to the state's response on April 21. Meshbesher stated Smith's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated and stated "the writ of habeas corpus releasing him from his unconstitutional confinement and restraint."

Orput stated the Minnesota Supreme Court made a reasonable determination of the facts when it found that no courtroom closure occurred that implicated the right to a public trial. Orput stated the petitioner-Smith's attorney-alleges the district court violated Smith's Sixth Amendment right to a public trail when it closed the courtroom to the public to discuss the parameters of its written order on the admissibility of certain testimony.

"The Minnesota Supreme Court determined that the facts surrounding the private bench conference showed it was only an administrative hearing and not part of the public trial. The Minnesota Supreme Court set forth the following summary of facts, which are presumed correct and unrebutted by petition," It stated in the state's memorandum.

The summary of facts include:

• "The courtroom closure occurred at the beginning of the trial on April 21, 2014, shortly after the case was called but before the jury took its final oath and began to hear argument and testimony.

• "The closure was the sequel to a pretrial hearing on April 17, 2014, which was open to the public. The hearing was on motions in limine, including the issue of the extent which Smith could offer evidence of the previous burglaries of his house. Smith argued that he should be able to call Brady's mother and friends as witnesses to testify to Brady's involvement in the previous burglaries. Defense counsel discussed Brady's alleged co-participants by name at the hearing, so those names were in the public record.

• "On April 21, 2014, the day the parties would present opening statements and witnesses to the jury, the deputy court administrator called the case. The court then closed the courtroom to all except the attorneys, Smith and court staff. The court said: 'We have just cleared the courtroom just for a quick moment from the spectator gallery.' Defense counsel then stated: 'Your Honor, this is a-I thought about the court's suggestion and I would ask the court to reconsider.' Defense counsel asked that the public be allowed to be present, including media because to not allow that would infringe upon the freedom of the public to be present as well as the free press. Smith has that right to a public trial."

• "The district court then proceeded to discuss the 'pretrial ruling of the court' and advised the parties and Smith that the court had ruled to exclude some of the evidence of Brady's prior bad acts. As part of the ruling, the court explained that defense counsel could not 'disclose the names of ... or Brady involved in prior burglaries before Nov. 22, 2012.' The court stated that the evidence was inadmissible because Smith did not know the identity of those who broke into his home before Thanksgiving of 2014. The court then explained its reasoning for closing the courtroom.

"That was the reason that the court is not allowing the press in for this ruling, because otherwise it could be printed and indeed while the jurors hopefully will follow the admonition not to read or hear anything in the press ... it would run the risk of (the information) getting to the jury."

Orput states the Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the procedural events surrounding the alleged closure of the courtroom and made careful factual findings and found that there was no constitutional violation of the sixth amendment-stating the nonpublic proceeding was in essence a bench conference on the court's application of legal principles to a disputed evidentiary court ruling.

"Smith received a public trial," Orput stated.

In response to Orput's argument, Meshbesher stated the Minnesota Supreme Court has never ruled that the right to a public trial extends to a private bench conference. He stated the closed proceedings in Smith's jury trial was a mere "private bench conference" and the state fails to inspire confidence in the theory that the Sixth Amendment applies only to those specific portions of a jury trial that have been subject to Supreme Court review."

Meshbesher stated all portions of an accused's trial are subject to the Sixth Amendment public trial right, stating a case of Waller versus Georgia, a case in 1984 where the sixth amendment was violated where pretrial suppression hearings were closed to the public.

"In (Smith's) case, the closure did not occur during the grand jury proceedings, a pretrial suppression hearing or during juror voir dire. According to the respondent's argument, this forecloses habeas relief for Mr. Smith," Meshbesher wrote.

"The respondent's arguments stems from a flawed factual predicate that the closed proceedings was only an 'one the record bench conference' where the court discussed a pretrial order with counsel." Meshbesher stated that prior to the closure, the district court had never ruled that Smith could not call the two subjects to testify about the several prior burglaries at Smith's residence. The district court also didn't make any rulings or enter any orders regarding the admissibility of testimony from three subjects at the April 17, 2014 hearing and made no ruling before the closed proceedings on April 21, 2014.

"Rather the trial judge had only ruled inadmissible evidence of prior bad acts by Nicholas Brady and Haile Kifer ... The closed court proceeding in trial was the first Mr. Smith learned that he would be prohibited from calling (the two subjects) as witnesses in his case. Neither the public or the press were afforded the opportunity to bear contemporaneous witness to the exclusion of this important evidence, and they were not made privy to it after the closure."

Orput also argued that Smith's right to a public trial claim included a thorough review of federal appellate precedent.

In the federal court case, Smith is listed as the petitioner and Michelle Smith, the warden at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Oak Park Heights, is listed as the respondent. Oak Park Heights is where Smith is serving his time.