Drummond v. Houk, No. 11-3039 (6th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThree-month-old Jiyen was killed when 11 shots were fired into his home in a drive-by shooting. Prosecution witnesses testified to overhearing Drummond discussing a retribution for the death of a fellow gang member, seeing Drummond with an assault rifle 15 minutes before the fatal shots were fired, and to hearing Drummond say that “he didn’t meant [sic] to kill the baby.” A search of Drummond’s house yielded ammunition consistent with the shooting and items tying him to the gang. During trial, the court twice closed the courtroom, once stating that witnesses felt threatened by some of the spectators. A jury found Drummond guilty; the trial court sentenced Drummond to death. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed on direct appeal. State courts denied post-conviction relief. A federal district court granted habeas corpus, holding that the court violated Drummond’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The Sixth Circuit initially affirmed, but later reversed, distinguishing Supreme Court precedent that involved a full courtroom closure, while Drummond had a partial closing. For a partial closing, the court must balance the interests. The Ohio courts applied that principle reasonably, in the capacious sense of “reasonable” as used for purposes of the habeas statute.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 26, 2013.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.