John Drummond v. Marc Houk, 728 F.3d 520

Drummond was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death; Ohio appellate review upheld the conviction.
Drummond challenged his conviction in federal habeas corpus; the district court partially granted relief for a Sixth Amendment public-trial violation.
The district court concluded the state trial court’s February 4, 2004 closure of the courtroom violated the Sixth Amendment; other grounds were denied.
Houk, warden, appealed the partial grant; Drummond cross-appealed on (1) confrontation-clause issues and (2) trial-counsel effectiveness during sentencing.
The core issue is whether the trial court’s partial courtroom closure satisfied Waller v. Georgia and whether, under AEDPA, the Ohio Supreme Court unreasonably applied federal law.
The challenged closure occurred during the trial, with the press allowed in and the public excluded for part of the day; the record inadequately tied the closure to a specific threat or justified alternatives.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Waller applies to partial courtroom closures and was clearly established at the time	Houk argues Waller does not clearly establish law for partial closures	Drummond argues Waller applies and was reasonably applied	State court unreasonably applied Waller to partial closure; Waller applied to partial closures
Whether the trial court’s findings supported the closure and were adequate	No specific findings tying witnesses to threats or justification for closure	The court's findings were adequate given the partial closure context	Ohio Supreme Court’s findings were unreasonably inadequate to justify closure
Whether the remedy should be a new trial for the public-trial violation	Remedy appropriate under Waller’s framework	Remedy jurisdiction depends on the nature of the violation	New trial is the appropriate remedy

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (public-trial right; four-factor test for closures)
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1984) (four-factor test for voir dire closure)
Rodriguez v. Miller, 537 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2007) (Rodriguez II clarifies AEDPA application; family closure context)
Musladin v. Genovese, 549 U.S. 70 (U.S. 2006) (diverging circuit interpretations not clearly established law)
Garcia v. Bertsch, 470 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2006) (partial-closure analysis; factual tailoring and alternatives)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (AEDPA deference and clearly established law standard)
Petters, 663 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. 2011) (partial-closure treatment under Waller)
Waller v. Georgia (see above), 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (primary framework for public-trial closure)