Elijah Addai v. Robyn Schmalenberger, 776 F.3d 528

In 2007 Elijah Addai stabbed and killed David Delonais; Addai was convicted of class AA felony murder and sentenced to life with parole.
At trial Addai called J. Lange (an attorney) as a witness; Lange objected that parts of his testimony and a document were privileged or restricted.
The trial court briefly closed the courtroom so questioning about a restricted document could proceed; Addai's trial counsel expressly consented to the closure and elicited most of the closed-door testimony.
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and rejected Addai's public-trial claim; a state post-conviction court denied his ineffective-assistance claim and the denial was affirmed on summary disposition.
Addai filed a § 2254 habeas petition arguing (1) the brief courtroom closure violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for consenting to the closure; the district court denied relief and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a brief, consensual courtroom closure violated the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial	Addai: closure violated Waller balancing and was plain error	State: Addai waived the right by consenting; no Waller error review required	Court: Waiver — consented closure forfeited public-trial claim; no plain error relief available
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for consenting to the closure	Addai: counsel's consent was deficient and caused structural error, so prejudice should be presumed	State: counsel's strategy was reasonable and no prejudice resulted; petitioner must show prejudice under Strickland	Court: No prejudice shown; counsel's strategic consent did not render performance ineffective
Whether AEDPA permits habeas relief given state-court adjudication on the merits	Addai: state decision contrary/unreasonable application of clearly established federal law	State: state decisions were reasonable applications of Supreme Court precedent	Court: AEDPA deference applies; state courts did not unreasonably apply federal law
Whether brief closed testimony (scope) could have affected trial fairness	Addai: closed testimony might have been significant	State: closed testimony was minimal, largely elicited by defense and not adverse	Court: Closed portion was brief and not prejudicial; no impact on verdict

Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (right to public trial belongs to the accused)
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (standard for closing courtroom when a party objects)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error four-part test)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA unreasonable-application standard)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (scope of review of state-court decisions on habeas)
United States v. Thunder, 438 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2006) (values supporting open criminal trials)