John Drummond v. Marc Houk
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14286
6th Cir.2015Background
- John Drummond shot and killed an infant; convicted of aggravated murder in Ohio and sentenced to death.
- During trial the judge excluded most public spectators (but not the press) for several hours while three key prosecution witnesses testified; defense requested some family members remain but they were excluded.
- Trial court also barred cross-examination about pending or dismissed criminal charges for three prosecution witnesses (Morris, Thomas, Rozenblad).
- Drummond raised (1) Sixth Amendment public-trial violation, (2) Confrontation Clause violation for limits on cross-examination, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call a mitigation witness (half-brother Michael Brooks).
- The federal district court granted habeas relief on the public-trial claim; the Sixth Circuit panel affirmed, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of White v. Woodall, and the Sixth Circuit (majority) reversed the district court and denied habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public-trial closure | Partial closure violated Waller; closure broader than necessary, inadequate findings, no alternatives considered | Closure was based on serious security/witness-safety concerns; media remained; Ohio courts reasonably applied Waller's balancing | AEDPA: Ohio Supreme Court's application was not an unreasonable application of clearly established law; habeas relief denied on this claim |
| Confrontation Clause (cross-exam) | Excluding questions about witnesses’ pending/dismissed charges deprived confrontation/cross-examination | Supreme Court precedent permits limitation absent a promise of favorable treatment; no deal here | Denied: barring those questions did not violate Van Arsdall; district court correctly denied relief |
| Ineffective assistance (mitigation witness) | Counsel failed to interview/call half-brother Brooks; his testimony could have changed sentencing outcome | Counsel conducted mitigation investigation (investigator, psychologist); Brooks’s affidavit was cumulative of known evidence; tactical decision reasonable | Denied: counsel’s choices were within Strickland reasonableness and no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| AEDPA standard of review | State decision conflicted with Waller and federal precedent; warrants habeas relief | Under AEDPA, relief only if state court decision was objectively unreasonable; reasonable grounds for disagreement exist | Majority: because Supreme Court caselaw did not clearly establish how Waller’s specific rules apply to partial closures, fair‑minded jurists could disagree; AEDPA bars relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (public‑trial closure requires balancing and specific procedural safeguards)
- White v. Woodall, 134 S. Ct. 1697 (2014) (clarifies AEDPA: relief under §2254(d)(1) requires that application of clearly established law be beyond fair‑minded disagreement)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (Confrontation Clause requires cross‑examination when government has promised favorable treatment)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4 (2009) (counsel need not pursue every possible mitigation witness; cumulative evidence may justify tactical choices)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948) (historical and constitutional importance of public trial)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (per curiam) (public‑trial right violated where courtroom closure excluded a lone public observer during voir dire)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference: state‑court decisions must be objectively unreasonable to warrant habeas relief)