Inmate: PARKER, JOHN FORREST
Gender: M
Race: W
DOB: 5/21/1968
Prison Holman
Received:6/22/1989
Charge: MURDER
County: Colbert

Al.Com

"State of Alabama executes John Forrest Parker." (Ap Thursday, June 10, 2010, 7:05 PM)

ATMORE -- Alabama corrections authorities say they executed by lethal injection John Forrest Parker at 6:41 p.m. CST Thursday.

Parker, 42, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to die for the killing of Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett, a 45-year-old grandmother who was stabbed repeatedly and beaten with a pipe at her Colbert County home. Prosecutors said Parker was one of two men paid $1,000 each by a third man on behalf of her husband, the Rev. Charles Sennett, who was deeply in debt and wanted to collect on insurance. He committed suicide one week after his wife's slaying.

Parker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court late Wednesday after the Alabama Supreme Court voted 7-2 to reject his plea for a stay. Shortly before the scheduled execution time of 6 p.m. Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected in appeal. In the appeal, Parker's attorneys challenged the constitutionality of an Alabama law that allowed the trial judge to override the jury's recommendation that Parker be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The Alabama Attorney General's Office filed a response Thursday saying Parker had raised the override argument earlier in his appeal. They said that it was rejected by courts and that the trial judge sufficiently considered the jury's recommendation before sentencing Parker to death.

Parker was moved earlier this week into a holding cell just a few steps from the death chamber where he is to be strapped to a gurney and receive the lethal injection. He spent most of Thursday meeting with friends and family members, including his mother, Joan Parker, and his father, Edward Parker. Friend Carolyn Watson and two religious advisers from the Kairos prison ministry, Ben Sherrod and Taylor Perry, were to witness the execution.

News24-TV

"Alabama executes contract killer." (2010-06-11 13:16)

Washington - Convicted murderer John Forrest Parker was executed Thursday in the US state of Alabama for the 1988 contract killing of a pastor's wife, a prison official said. Parker, 42, died by lethal injection at 18:41 (23:41 GMT) for the killing of Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett, Alabama prison authority spokesperson Brian Corbett said. "I'm sorry. I don't ever expect you to forgive me," Parker told the woman's family shortly before dying. "I really am sorry."

Parker was 19 when he and an accomplice accepted a proposal by a pastor to kill his wife, a 45-year-old grandmother, for money. Sennett was stabbed and beaten to death. Her debt-ridden husband had taken out a life insurance policy on behalf of his wife shortly before recruiting Parker and a friend to kill her. The husband committed suicide a few days after the killing.

After his trial, a jury convicted Parker of capital murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. But the judge overruled the jury's punishment and sentenced him to death, his lawyers said in a statement.

Among the 35 US states that employ the death penalty, Alabama is one of three that allow judges to override the verdict of a jury. This was the second execution of the year in Alabama and the 27th overall in the United States in 2010.

Times Daily

"Parker put to death," by Tom Smith. (Friday, June 11, 2010 at 3:30 a.m.) "Charles Sennett said death is not easy for anybody, right or wrong. His comments came Thursday just minutes after he witnessed the execution of John Forrest Parker, the man convicted in the 1988 murder-for-hire death of Sennett's mother, a Colbert County minister's wife. Sennett and his brother, Michael, were at Holman Prison and watched Parker, 42, die from lethal injection.

Alabama corrections authorities said Parker was executed at 6:41 p.m. He is the first Shoals resident to die by lethal injection since it began in 1927.

Before the execution, Parker told the Sennett family he was sorry for what he did. “I'm sorry; I don't ever expect you to forgive me. I really am sorry,” Parker said just minutes before the execution process began. Parker, a Florence resident at the time, was convicted of capital murder June 6, 1989.

Attorneys at the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery who were representing Parker tried to get the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the execution. Corrections officials said the request was rejected a few minutes before the execution was scheduled to begin. Sennett said his family was told Gov. Bob Riley called the prison about 1 p.m. Thursday to inform corrections officials that he would not stop the execution.

Elizabeth Sennett, 45, died March 18, 1988, at Helen Keller Hospital in Sheffield after she was brutally beaten and stabbed at her home on Coon Dog Cemetery Road in Colbert County. Parker, along with Kenneth Eugene Smith and Bill Gray Williams, both also of Florence, are accused of being paid $1,000 each to kill Elizabeth Sennett. Authorities say Sennett's husband, who was a minister at Westside Church of Christ in Sheffield at the time, contracted Williams to kill his wife for $3,000. According to court documents, Williams paid Smith and Parker $1,000 each to commit the murder.

Smith and Parker were both convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Smith is still awaiting an execution date to be set. Williams is serving a life sentence without parole for his capital murder conviction. A week after becoming a suspect in the case, the victim's husband, also named Charles Sennett, shot and killed himself in his son's backyard.

“This is one of the steps we have to take to get closure and justice,” Sennett said after the execution. “We still have another step with Smith, but tonight was a step in the right direction.” Colbert County Sheriff Ronnie May, who was the lead investigator on the murder case, said he has continued to stay in touch with the victim's sons through the years. “I know they want to start the closure process, and I hope this does it for them,” May said after learning of Parker's execution.

Sennett said he and his brother still have unanswered questions. “Why this happened,” said Sennett, who was 25 and married with two children when his mother was killed. “Daddy took the answers to his grave and so are these boys (Parker and Smith).” Officials who investigated the murder said the underlying motive was that the husband was trying to get out of his marriage and that he was heavily in debt. “This was a devastating a situation on these two boys,” May said. “To lose your mom in this fashion and then learn that your father orchestrated the entire thing and then he took his own life before he could be punished. “I feel for these two boys and their families, as well as the Parker family.”

Sennett said he and his brother met with Parker's mother and father Thursday morning in Atmore. “They were remorseful for what their son did,” Sennett said. “We never hated them. They can't do anything about what their son did. We know they're hurting. “The Parker family is a victim to a point and our hearts go out to them.”

Testimony at trial indicated Elizabeth Sennett was stabbed multiple times to the right side of her chest, the right side of her back, the base of her neck, forehead, nose and scalp and sustained contusions on her nose and forehead. Records indicate Parker and Smith are accused of hitting the victim with a galvanized pipe and then stabbing her while she pleaded with them not to hurt her.

Sennett said his family wishes to express their sympathy to the Parker family and hope they find a way to deal with their loss. “We know what it is to lose a loved one,” Sennett said. “The only difference today is that John Parker had 22 years to say goodbye. We did not have that chance to say goodbye to our mom. It is a bittersweet day for both sides.”

He said the Parker family will need the support of family and friends, just as his family has had for 22 years. “As for the death of John Parker, the pain he did not feel today does not compare to that he inflicted on our mother 22 years ago,” Sennett said. “We would like to thank all of our family and friends for the prayers and calls that we have received this week and the last 22 years. Without the support of family and friends, we couldn't make it through. “Now, this part of it is over.”

WHNT-TV

"Shoals Man Executed Thursday Night," by Mary Stackhouse. (4:53 PM CDT, June 10, 2010)

A man convicted of murdering a Colbert County woman more than two decades ago was put to death at 6:41p.m. Thursday at Holman Prison in Atmore. John Forrest Parker was the first Shoals man to be executed by lethal injection in the state. Parker was convicted in the 1988 contract killing of Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett, who was stabbed to death in her home.

Thursday, Parker's attorneys asked the US Supreme court for a last minute stay to halt the execution. That request was countered by the Alabama Attorney General's Office, who filed papers opposing the stay.

Before he served as the Colbert County Sheriff, Ronnie May was the lead investigator in this case. May says he has spoken to Sennett's family recently and hopes the execution will bring them some closure.

Just over 22 years ago, authorities found 45 year old Elizabeth Sennett's in her Cherokee home on Coon Dog Cemetery Road. Officials say Parker was hired, along with two other men, to kill her. The state claimed Sennett's husband, Charles Sennett, a minister at the West Side Church of Christ in Sheffield was part of the crime. "It was a very cruel and brutal decision made by one man to have his wife killed in a very brutal fashion," said May. "I guess that's what I keep thinking about is the impact that it's had on the sons and the family."

According to May, Parker beat Sennett with an iron rod and then repeatedly stabbed her to death in her home. Afterwards, authorities say they disposed of the weapon in a pond next to the home. May hopes, after all this time, that Parker's execution will bring the family some relief. "I know what they've had to go through," said May. "This hopefully will bring some closure for them so they at least feel like some form of justice has been done because of what was done to Mrs. Sennett."

ProDeathPenalty.Com

In March 1988, Charles Sennett contracted with one of his tenants, Billy Gray Williams, to murder his wife, Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett, for $3000. Williams, in turn, hired John Parker and Kenneth Eugene Smith for $1000 each to commit the murder. Williams gave Parker $100 to purchase a weapon on 17 March 1988, and promised to pay him the balance when the job was completed. Instead of buying a weapon, Parker used the $100 for drugs and injected 3 cubic centimeters of Talwin, a narcotic analgesic (painkiller), while en route to the Sennetts’ residence on 18 March.

Parker drove his vehicle to the Sennetts’ residence while Smith, who was in the passenger seat, sharpened Parker’s survival knife. Parker parked his car behind the Sennetts’ home, told Dorlene that her husband had given them permission to look at the property as a hunting site and, upon receiving Dorlene’s approval, walked into a wooded area with Smith. They later returned to the house and received permission from Dorlene to use her bathroom. While in the bathroom, Parker put cotton socks onto his hands. He then exited the bathroom, jumped Dorlene, and began hitting her. Parker and Smith hit Dorlene with a galvanized pipe and stabbed her while she pled with them not to hurt her.

Consistent with their plan, they broke the glass in the medicine cabinet and took a stereo and video cassette recorder (VCR) to make the assault look like it was done during a burglary. Parker later burned his clothes and threw the stereo off a bridge, and he and Smith threw away the knife that they used. Parker subsequently received the additional $900 for the murder.

When Sennett arrived home, he found his house ransacked and Dorlene close to death, and called Colbert County Sheriff’s Investigator Ronnie May at 11:44 A.M. May dispatched a rescue squad and sheriff’s deputies to the Sennetts’ home. May and another deputy arrived at the Sennetts’ home about 12:05 P.M., and the rescue squad arrived soon thereafter. Dorlene was transported to the hospital, and seen by Dr. David Parks McKinley. Resuscitation efforts failed and Dorlene was declared dead as a result of cardiac arrest and exsanguination. An examination of her body revealed multiple stab wounds to the right side of her chest, the right side of her neck, the base of her neck, forehead, nose, and scalp, and contusions on her nose and forehead.

Hairs found at the crime scene in a cap located near Dorlene’s body were consistent with Smith’s known hair sample, and on an afghan that had been wrapped around Dorlene’s body were consistent with fibers later taken from Parker’s knife. The VCR taken from the Sennetts’ house was found inside Smith’s residence.

In April 1988, Parker was indicted for the capital murder of Dorlene by beating and stabbing her with a knife for the pecuniary consideration of $1000. At trial, he was found guilty by a jury; the jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The judge, however, overrode the jury and sentenced Parker to death on 21 June 1989. Charles Sennett, a Church of Christ minister, committed suicide on 25 March 1988, seven days after Dorlene died. Williams was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Smith was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.

UPDATE: John Forrest Parker, executed for the 1988 murder of Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett, told the woman's family, "I'm sorry, I don't ever expect you to forgive me. I really am sorry" moments before he died by lethal injection at Holman Prison in Atmore.

Wikipedia

The following individuals have been executed by the State of Alabama at the Holman Correctional Facility near Atmore since 1943:

Inmate Date Method Victim

1 John Louis Evans 22 April 1983 electrocution Edward Nassar.
2 Arthur Lee Jones 21 March 1986 electrocution William Hosea Waymon.
3 Wayne Ritter 28 August 1987 electrocution Edward Nassar.
4 Michael Lindsey 26 May 1989 electrocution Rosemary Zimlich Rutland.
5 Horace Dunkins 14 July 1989 electrocution Lynn McCurry.
6 Herbert Richardson 18 August 1989 electrocution Rena Mae Callins.
7 Arthur Julius 17 November 1989 electrocution Susie Bell Sanders.
8 Wallace Thomas 13 July 1990 electrocution Quenette Shehane.
9 Larry Heath 30 March 1992 electrocution Rebecca Heam.
10 Cornelius Singleton 20 November 1992 electrocution Ann Hogan.
11 Willie Clisby 28 April 1995 electrocution Fletcher Handley.
12 Varnell Weeks 12 May 1995 electrocution Mark Batts.
13 Edward Horsley, Jr. 16 February 1996 electrocution Naomi Rolon.
14 Billy Wayne Waldrop 10 January 1997 electrocution Thurman Donahoo.
15 Walter Hill 2 May 1997 electrocution Willie Mae Hammock, John Tatum, and Lois Tatum.
16 Henry Hays 6 June 1997 electrocution Michael Donald.
17 Stephen Allen Thompson 8 May 1998 electrocution Robin Balarzs.
18 Brian K. Baldwin 18 June 1999 electrocution Naomi Rolon.
19 Victor Kennedy 6 August 1999 electrocution Annie Laura Orr.
20 David Ray Duren 7 January 2000 electrocution Kathleen Bedsole.
21 Freddie Lee Wright 3 March 2000 electrocution Warren Green and Lois Green.
22 Robert Lee Tarver, Jr. 14 April 2000 electrocution Hugh Sims Kite.
23 Pernell Ford 2 June 2002 electrocution Willie C. Griffith and Linda Gail Griffith.
24 Lynda Lyon Block 10 May 2002 electrocution Opelika Officer Roger Lamar Motley.
25 Anthony Keith Johnson 12 December 2002 lethal injection Kenneth Cantrell.
26 Michael Eugene Thompson 13 March 2003 lethal injection Maisie Carlene Gray.
27 Gary Leon Brown 24 April 2003 lethal injection Jack David McGraw.
28 Tommy Jerry Fortenberry 7 August 2003 lethal injection Ronald Michael Guest, Wilbut T. Nelson, Robert William Payne, and Nancy Payne.
29 James Barney Hubbard August 5, 2004 lethal injection Lillian Montgomery.
30 David Kevin Hocker 30 September 2004 lethal injection Jerry Wayne Robinson.
31 Mario Giovanni Centobie 28 April 2005 lethal injection Moody police officer Keith Turner.
32 Jerry Paul Henderson 2 June 2005 lethal injection Jerry Haney in Talladega and for accepting $3,000 from Haney's wife for the killing.
33 George Everett Sibley, Jr. (common-law husband of Lynda Lyon Block) 4 August 2005 lethal injection Opelika Officer Roger Lamar Motley.
34 John W. Peoples, Jr. September 22, 2005 lethal injection Paul Franklin, Judy Franklin, and Paul Franklin, Jr.
35 Larry Eugene Hutcherson October 26, 2006 lethal injection Irma Thelma Gray
36 Aaron Lee Jones May 3, 2007 lethal injection Carl Nelson and Willene Nelson
37 Darrell Grayson July 26, 2007 lethal injection Annie Laura Orr
38 Luther Jerome Williams August 23, 2007 lethal injection John Kirk
39 James Harvey Callahan January 15, 2009 lethal injection Rebecca Suzanne Howell
40 Danny Joe Bradley February 12, 2009 lethal injection Rhonda Hardin
41 Jimmy Lee Dill April 16, 2009 lethal injection Leon Shaw
42 Willie McNair May 14, 2009 lethal injection Ella Foy Riley
43 Jack Trawick June 11, 2009 lethal injection Stephanie Gach
44 Max Landon Payne October 8, 2009 lethal injection Braxton Brown
45 Thomas Warren Whisenhant May 27, 2010 lethal injection Sheryl Lynn Payton
46 John Forrest Parker June 10, 2010 lethal injection Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett

Parker v. State, 610 So.2d 1171 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992). (Direct Appeal)

Defendant was convicted in the Colbert Circuit Court, Inge Johnson, J., of capital murder for pecuniary gain and was sentenced to death. After remand, 587 So.2d 1072, the Circuit Court reimposed death sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals, Bowen, J., held that: (1) prosecution's use of peremptory strikes to remove eight black veniremembers did not violate principles of Batson ; (2) trial judge complied with statutory requirements for capital sentencing proceeding; and (3) sentence of death was neither excessive nor disproportionate to penalty imposed in similar cases. Opinion extended; affirmed.

ON RETURN TO REMAND
BOWEN, Judge.

The appellant, John Forrest Parker, was convicted of the capital offense of murder for pecuniary gain, as defined in Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(7), and sentenced to death. Parker v. State, 587 So.2d 1072 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). On original submission, we remanded this cause with directions that the trial court (1) conduct an evidentiary hearing in accordance with Ex parte Bankhead, 585 So.2d 112 (Ala.1991), and require the prosecutor to state his reasons for striking black veniremembers, Parker, 587 So.2d at 1077, and (2) correct certain errors and omissions in the imposition of sentence, id. at 1100. I.

After conducting an evidentiary hearing on the matter, the trial judge, with commendable thoroughness and a conscientiousness warranted by the sentence imposed in this case, entered a written order in which she made specific findings of fact and concluded that the principles of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), were not violated by the prosecution's use of its peremptory strikes to remove eight black venire members. That order is attached to this opinion as Appendix I.

The findings and conclusions contained in that order are fully supported by our own independent review of the record and are approved by this Court. We find that no violation of the principles of Batson v. Kentucky, supra, or Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala.1987), occurred in this case. See Ex parte Bird and Warner, 594 So.2d 676 (Ala.1991). II.

In remanding this cause on original submission, this Court explicitly instructed the trial court to “1) make new findings regarding the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, 2) weigh those aggravating and mitigating circumstances and determine whether the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, and 3) enter a proper sentencing order as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-47(d).” Parker, 587 So.2d at 1100. In response, the trial judge entered an “AMENDED ORDER OF COURT ON IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE.” That order is attached to this opinion as Appendix II.

In that amended sentencing order, the trial judge, as required by § 13A-5-47(d), entered specific written findings concerning the existence or nonexistence of each of the eight statutory aggravating circumstances set forth in § 13A-5-49, and the existence or nonexistence of each of the seven statutory mitigating circumstances set forth in § 13A-5-51. The trial judge found the existence of one aggravating circumstance: that the capital offense was committed for pecuniary gain. § 13A-5-49(6). The trial judge found the existence of two statutory mitigating circumstances: that the appellant has no significant history of prior criminal activity, § 13A-5-51(1); and that the appellant was 19 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, § 13A-5-51(7). The trial judge found the existence of two nonstatutory mitigating circumstances: the jury's recommendation of life without parole and the appellant's remorse. The trial judge then concluded that the aggravating circumstance outweigh the mitigating circumstances. III.

The appellant contends that there is no evidence to support the trial court's finding that the Appellant and Smith held Mrs. Sennett “down with a small blue chair and stabbing her while she was asking them not to hurt her.” R. 25 and 28. The finding is directly supported by the appellant's statement to Investigator May. See R. 1419. IV.

The amended order of the trial court is proper, is supported by the record, and fully complies with the requirements of § 13A-5-47(d). Therefore, this Court now reviews the propriety of the sentence of death imposed by the trial court.

This Court has searched the record and found no error which “has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant.” Rule 45A, A.R.App.P.; accord, § 13A-5-53(a). There is no evidence that the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. § 13A-5-53(b)(1). This Court's independent weighing of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances indicates that death was the proper sentence. § 13A-5-53(b)(2). The sentence of death in this case is neither excessive nor disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant. § 13A-5-53(b)(3).

Therefore, the appellant's conviction for capital murder and his sentence to death are affirmed. All Judges concur.

APPENDIX I

State of Alabama Colbert County
In the Circuit Court of Colbert County, Alabama
John Forrest Parker, Appellant
vs.
State of Alabama
Case Nos. CR 89-838, CC 88-105.
Dec. 3, 1991.

ORDER

This cause was heretofore remanded by the Court of Criminal Appeals, State of Alabama, for an evidentiary hearing at which the prosecution was ORDERED to give reasons for its use of peremptory challenges against black venire members and if not able to articulate specific race-neutral explanations that are related to this particular case a new trial be granted the appellant. This Court notes that the defendant has never established a prima facie case of discrimination and this is not a case where the prosecutor has volunteered his reasons prior to the trial court's determination on the defendant's establishment of a prima facie case of discrimination. The present hearing is required pursuant to Ex parte Bankhead, 585 So.2d 112 (Ala.1991). A hearing was set for November 12, 1991 at 2:30 p.m. The State's attorneys, Gary Alverson and Ronald Hudson, were present and defendant, John Forrest Parker, was present in person and represented by his attorneys, Thomas Heflin and Gene Hamby. An additional hearing was held on motion of defendant on November 18, 1991, at 2:10 p.m. The same parties were present. The Court having proceeded to consider the testimony given by the District Attorney, Gary Alverson, on behalf of the State, as well as having considered all of the testimony and evidence presented on behalf of the defendant, and the court noting for the record that 59 jurors from the original jury venire were present, having responded to subpoenas issued by the defendant, and the Court further having considered the original jury venire list which was stipulated to by the parties and which is already a part of the record on appeal, beginning with No. 3, S.A. and ending with No. 129, M.W., which list also reflects the strikes made by the State and the strikes made by the defendant, and the Court having considered all of the testimony and evidence presented in open Court, and based upon said evidence and testimony, the Court does find that the venire consisted of 79 prospective jurors, 10 of which were excused, leaving the number at 69. There were 9 black jurors on said venire, and 60 white jurors. The 9 black venire members comprised 13% of the venire. The blacks comprised 8% of the trial jury.

The Court further finds that the State presented evidence which indicated that venire member No. 3, a black female named S.A., was stricken by the State because she was the daughter of E.A., who was being prosecuted by the District Attorney at that time for the offense of Theft of Property in the First Degree.

The Court further finds that venire member No. 21, a black female, was stricken by the State because she knew the victim's husband's girlfriend, D.T. The victim's husband had procured this defendant and his co-defendants to kill his wife, and D.T. was a prospective witness for the defendant at the time of selection of the jury. The District Attorney also testified that she was stricken because she was related to one R.C. who had been prosecuted for violation of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substance Act and because of her statement that she was generally opposed to the death penalty. The State further presented evidence that B.R., white veniremember No. 92, was struck for the same general reasons by the State. The State further presented evidence that said veniremember T.C. indicated during voir dire that she had some knowledge and training in psychology. The District Attorney testified that he struck all veniremembers who had training in the field of psychology because they might place undue emphasis on defense witness Dr. Crowder's testimony. The District Attorney testified that white veniremember No. 129, M.W., white veniremember No. 92, B.R., white veniremember No. 63, R.L., white veniremember No. 58, S.L., white veniremember No. 9, R.B., and white veniremember No. 82, M.N., were all stricken for that same reason, inasmuch as they responded during voir dire that they had some knowledge and training in the field of psychology.

With respect to veniremember No. 25, a black male by the name of J.D., the State indicated that the reason they struck said veniremember was because he indicated during voir dire that he had has [sic] difficulty staying overnight, and white veniremember 53, J.J., and white veniremember No. 40, P.H., were stricken for the same reason by the State. The State further presented evidence that J.D. had stated during voir dire: “I really don't want to be here” and that that was an additional reason the State struck veniremember No. 25, J.D.

The State presented evidence that they had stricken veniremember No. 67, a black female by the name of W.M., because she indicated during voir dire that she has worked with members of the family of Billy Gray Williams, the black co-defendant to the defendant of this case, whose case had been tried at the time; that she had heard discussions regarding this case, and white veniremember No. 68, B.M., was stricken for the same reason inasmuch as she stated during voir dire that she knew the family of the defendant, John Forrest Parker, in this case, the co-defendant of Billy Gray Williams.

With respect to veniremember No. 77, black female C.M., the State presented evidence that they had stricken her because the District Attorney had information that she was a cousin to R.M. and J.M., who had been prosecuted by the District Attorney on drug charges and further on the ground that drug use and violations were factually related to this case. The State further offered as an excuse for striking veniremember C.M. she had a child born out of wedlock and that the defendant in this case likewise had a child born out of wedlock, and the State indicated that they felt like veniremember C.M. would be sympathetic toward the defendant and his case for this reason.

With respect to veniremember No. 83, a black female, A.O., the State presented evidence that they struck veniremember A.O. because she was married to T.O., who is the brother of W.E.O., who at the time of the trial of this cause had a pending criminal case against him for sale of cocaine. Further, this veniremember's husband, T.O., was a defendant in a civil forfeiture case arising out of the same sale of cocaine case against W.E.O., at the time this case was tried, and, further, veniremember A.O. stated during voir dire that she knew the attorney for the defendant, Gene Hamby, through her work with the City of Sheffield.

With respect to veniremember No. 20, black male, E.L.W. the State offered as *1175 evidence of the reason for their striking veniremember E.L.W. that he had a series of traffic offenses in recent years, indicating a disregard for the law, and State offered testimony that they also struck veniremember No. 129, M.W. with a similar type record for the same reason. With respect to veniremember No. 121, black female by the name of M.A.W., the State indicated that they struck veniremember M.A.W. because she had indicated during voir dire that she had training in the area of psychology. The State struck white veniremember No. 129, M.W., white veniremember No. 92, B.R., white veniremember No. 63, R.L., white veniremember No. 58, S.L., white veniremember No. 9, R.B., and white veniremember No. 82, M.N. for the same reason, in addition to black veniremember No. 21, T.C., who was struck for this reason, among others, by the State. Black veniremember No. 113, C.T., served on the trial jury in this case.

On cross-examination the District Attorney, Gary Alverson, testified that his information regarding traffic tickets was obtained from local police department and the Colbert County Circuit Clerk's records; that the State was particularly concerned about jurors with more than one traffic ticket. The District Attorney testified that information on veniremembers' relatives regarding felony cases, pending or disposed of, was obtained from the circuit court files in the Circuit Clerk's office in Colbert County.

No evidence was presented during the hearing which contradicted the State's evidence that veniremember T.C. was related to R.C., who had been prosecuted by the District Attorney on a drug case; that veniremember C.M. was related to R.M. and J.M., who were prosecuted by the District Attorney on drug charges; that veniremember A.O. was related to T.O., who was a defendant in a forfeiture case where the State was the plaintiff at the time of the trial, and that she was related to W.E.O., who was a defendant in a sale of cocaine case brought by the State at the time of this trial. Further, the State's testimony with respect to pending charges and convictions of relatives of these veniremembers was uncontradicted.

The District Attorney testified that he did not ask members of the jury venire whether or not anyone had children born out of wedlock because he felt it would embarrass the veniremembers to whom they would apply. The District Attorney obtained this information through other sources, namely through local law enforcement officers and his investigator's efforts in Colbert County, Alabama.

The Court further finds that Juror No. 88, M.Q., testified that he had a first cousin who had been convicted of a felony (breaking into some houses) but that he thought it was in Franklin County. Said juror also testified that he did not have more than one regular traffic ticket but had traffic tickets when he was part of the railroad crew which was discharged for violating the speeding regulations for trains.

Veniremember No. 46, L.H., testified that she had a family member, namely an uncle by marriage, who had been convicted of a felony in Colbert County. Juror No. 8, J.R.A., testified that he had a relative who had been convicted of a felony, namely, making whiskey, fifteen years ago. Juror No. 78, N.G.M., testified that he had a brother who had been convicted of a felony twenty years ago in Lawrence County, Alabama (as an accessory to a robbery). Juror No. 85, W.G.P., testified that he had had more than one traffic conviction; however, only one was in Colbert County, and it was seven to eight years ago. Juror No. 11, J.S., testified that she had more than one traffic ticket, namely, two old ones, one from Florence, Lauderdale County, Alabama, and one from Muscle Shoals, Colbert County, Alabama, another one in 1987 in Lauderdale County, and one in Sheffield, Alabama, in 1988. Juror No. 64, L.L., testified that she had a relative in Florida, an uncle on her mother's side, who was convicted of a felony 12-15 years ago; said juror thought it was a *1176 manslaughter case, and the conviction was in the State of Florida. Juror No. 41, G.H., foreman of the trial jury, testified that he had a first cousin who had been convicted of what he thought was a felony in Madison County, Alabama. Said juror further testified that during the past ten years he has had two speeding tickets, one in Colbert County and one in Lauderdale County. Juror No. 66, T.R.M., testified that he had had a couple of traffic tickets, one in Leighton, Colbert County, Alabama, and one in Lauderdale County, from Rogersville in 1982.

Based on the testimony presented by the District Attorney, the Court finds that it was the practice of the District Attorney to check municipal police departments, the district court and the circuit court in Colbert County, Alabama, for traffic violations and further finds that the practice of the District Attorney's office was to strike jurors who had a series of traffic violations within the recent past, and further finds that said practice was not rebutted by the testimony of the jurors called on behalf of the defendant, the Court finding that none of those jurors had more than one traffic ticket from Colbert County, either municipal, district or circuit court, in the recent past, and although some had more than one traffic ticket, said convictions were in other circuits. The information concerning out-of-Circuit or out-of-State convictions was not shown to be known to the District Attorney at the time of striking of the jury. The Court further finds that of the jurors who testified on behalf of the defendant one would have been stricken by the State pursuant to the State's practice, namely veniremember No. 46, L.H., and the District Attorney agreed that he overlooked her relationship by marriage to a person who had been convicted of a felony in Colbert County, Alabama. The Court further finds from the evidence that if the State had sought additional verification of its traffic information on veniremembers through the computer record from the State Department of Public Safety, the State would only have been able to get jurors' traffic records for the last five years. The District Attorney further testified that with respect to his practice that he intended to strike all jurors who had training in the field of psychology, that he overlooked the information obtained during the lengthy voir dire with respect to juror No. 11, J.S. The District Attorney testified that that was his mistake. The Court does not find that there was a significant disparate treatment of members of the jury venire with the same characteristics, or who answered a question in the same manner.

The Court finds that there was no proof that there was a pattern of strikes against black jurors on this particular venire. The State had 28 strikes available and struck 8 black veniremembers and 20 white veniremembers, thus using 29% of its strikes to strike black veniremembers.

The Court does not find that there was any specific evidence of any past conduct of the State's attorney in using peremptory challenges to strike all blacks from the jury venire. Although the defendant asked the Court to take judicial notice of the jury lists in several cases, the majority of which were not tried before the undersigned judge, the undersigned judge has no knowledge from the evidence presented at this hearing why the particular jurors were chosen in these other cases, and does not find that mere juror lists is proof of intentional past discriminatory practice on the part of the District Attorney. In two of the cases submitted by defendant, the State struck fewer black veniremembers than the defense, (CC-87-137 and -138).

The Court further finds that the State's attorney's questions and statements during voir dire were very detailed, and much more than a desultory voir dire. The Court does not find from the evidence that the State's questions directed to the challenged veniremembers, both in the sense of the questions that were asked, and in the sense of the questions that were not asked were calculated to enable the State to strike the black veniremembers. The Court does not find that there was a significant disparate treatment of members *1177 of the jury venire with the same characteristics, or who answered a question in the same or similar manner. The Court does not find that the voir dire examination of members of the venire on behalf of the State was designed to provoke certain responses which were likely to disqualify black veniremembers but not white veniremembers. The Court does not find that there was any circumstantial evidence of intent on the part of the District Attorney to strike the jurors for other reasons than race-neutral reasons.

Although the State did strike all but one black veniremember on the venire, the court finds from the evidence that the percentage of black jurors on the venire was 13% and the percentage of black jurors on the trial jury was 8%.

With respect to the testimony of David Thompson, former investigator for the District Attorney, this Court finds that said David Thompson was not the investigator for the District Attorney at the time of the jury selection in this case. To the contrary, he had been gone from his employment with the District's Attorney's office for nearly two years (from August 1987 until May 1989). This Court further finds that said investigator did little, if any, jury investigation for the District Attorney's office. Based on the testimony of Assistant District Attorney Ronald Hudson, this Court simply finds that said witness' testimony was not believable. This Court further finds that the District Attorney's office had in fact explained the Batson decision to said David Thompson while he was one of the investigators for the District Attorney's office. This Court further finds that this District Attorney's office was the first in the State to apply Batson to the defense at the trial level.

Based on all of the evidence presented in open Court, this court finds that the prosecution's strikes were race-neutral, this court specifically finding no pattern of strikes against black jurors on this particular venire, no proof of any intentional past conduct of the State's attorney in using peremptory challenges to strike all blacks from the jury venire, no proof that the voir dire was a desultory voir dire; and no disparate treatments of members of the venire who gave similar answers or with respect to whom the State had similar information.

This Court finds that the defendant in this case had a public trial by an impartial jury as guaranteed by Amendment VI of the Constitution of the United States of America. See also, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.[2d] 69 (1986); Powers v. Ohio [499 U.S. 400], 111 S.Ct. 1364 [113 L.Ed.2d 411] (1990); Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala.1987); Harrell v. State, 555 So.2d 263, 268 (Ala.1989); Stephens v. State, 580 So.2d 11 (Ala.Civ.App.1990), affirmed, 580 So.2d 26 (Ala.), cert. denied 502 U.S. 859, 112 S.Ct. 176 [116 L.Ed.2d 138] (1991); Bryant v. State, 516 So.2d 938 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Ex parte Bird and Warner, 594 So.2d 676 (1991); and Jackson v. State [594 So.2d 1289] (Ala.Cr.App.1991).

Done and ORDERED this the 3rd day of December, 1991.

/s/Inge P. Johnson
Presiding Circuit Judge

APPENDIX II

State of Alabama Colbert County
In the Circuit Court of Colbert County, Alabama
John Forrest Parker, Appellant
vs.
State of Alabama
Case Nos. CR 89-838, CC 88-105.
Dec. 3, 1991.

AMENDED ORDER OF COURT ON IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE

The defendant in this case, John Forrest Parker, was charged by indictment of the Grand Jury of the Circuit Court of the 31st Judicial Circuit of Alabama in and for Colbert County, Alabama, with the capital offense of Murder done for a pecuniary or other valuable consideration. This charge is brought pursuant to the provisions of the *1178 Code of Alabama, 1975, as amended, Section 13A-5-40(a)(7).

This case came on to be heard before the Court and the jury of twelve men and women duly empaneled and sworn as required by law. The jury after hearing the evidence and the Court's oral charge as to the applicable law, including the lesser included offenses of Conspiracy to Commit Murder, Assault in the First Degree, Assault in the Second Degree, and Manslaughter, retired to deliberate and upon the consideration of the law and evidence found the defendant guilty of capital murder as charged in the indictment. The verdict was unanimous in finding the defendant guilty of the capital offense as charged in the indictment and not of any of the lesser included offenses. The Court announced the jury's verdict on June 6, 1989, and on June 7, 1989, commenced a sentence hearing before the same jury pursuant to Section 13A-5-45 of the Code of Alabama of 1975, as amended. After hearing the evidence during the punishment phase and hearing, the jury was again charged as to the applicable law, advising said jury that if mitigating circumstances outweighed the aggravating circumstances then the punishment would be life imprisonment without eligibility for parole, but if the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances, the verdict would be death. After due deliberation, the jury returned a verdict affixing the defendant's punishment at life imprisonment without parole, the verdict being two (2) for death and ten (10) voting for life imprisonment without parole. The makeup of the jury was as follows: Nine (9) white men, one (1) black man, and two (2) white women. The Court then announced the jury's verdict and set the 21st day of June, 1989, at 2:30 p.m. for further hearing as mandated by Section 13A-5-47 of the Code of Alabama of 1975, as amended. At said hearing, the defendant, his trial counselors and the district attorney and chief deputy district attorney were present and ready to proceed.

FINDINGS OF FACTS

The Court finds from the evidence introduced at trial that the defendant, John Forrest Parker, and his friend, Kenneth Eugene Smith, on the morning of March 18, 1988, went to the home of Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett in rural Colbert County, Alabama, with the intent to kill said Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett. The Court further finds from said evidence that the day before, Billy Gray Williams had paid the defendant the sum of One Hundred and No/100 ($100.00) Dollars to use for purchasing a weapon to be used in said murder, but that the defendant used that money for drugs to “shoot up.” The Court further finds that the defendant was promised One Thousand and no/100 ($1,000.00) Dollars for the killing by Billy Gray Williams, and that he would be paid the balance when the job was done. The Court further finds that Kenneth Eugene Smith and the defendant, John Forrest Parker, drove to the residence of Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett in the defendant's vehicle. The Court further finds that the defendant shot up 3 cc's of Talwin on the way to said residence. The Court further finds that the defendant had been unsuccessful in securing a gun for “the job” and that he brought with him a survival knife. The Court further finds that the defendant drove his vehicle to Elizabeth Sennett's home and that Kenneth Eugene Smith sharpened the defendant's knife all the way down there. The Court further finds that they parked the defendant's car in the rear of the Sennett home. The court further finds that the defendant and Mr. Smith asked Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett for permission to use the bathroom, which she gave them. While in the bathroom, the defendant put cotton socks on his hands. The Court further finds that when he came out of the bathroom, the defendant jumped Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett and started hitting her and together he and Kenneth Eugene Smith killed her by hitting her with a galvanized pipe, holding her down with a small blue chair and stabbing her while she was asking them not to hurt her. The Court further finds that the defendant and Kenneth Eugene Smith took a VCR and a stereo to make it look like a burglary, which was in accordance with their plan, and that they also broke the glass in the medicine cabinet to further this plan. The Court further finds from the evidence that the defendant and Kenneth Eugene Smith threw away the survival knife they had used for the killing, and that the defendant threw the stereo off a bridge and burned his clothes after the killing. The Court further finds that the defendant was paid the additional Nine Hundred and no/100 ($900.00) Dollars after the killing.

The Court considers the aggravating circumstances as set out and enumerated in Section 13A-5-49 of the Code of Alabama, as amended.

A. The Court finds from the evidence introduced at the trial and reintroduced at the punishment hearing before the jury that the defendant, John Forrest Parker, committed this murder for pecuniary gain, namely, for the sum of One Thousand and no/100 ($1,000.00) Dollars. The Court finds that said defendant was in fact paid that sum for said intentional killing. The Court finds that this is an aggravating circumstance pursuant to Section 13A-5-49(6) of the Code of Alabama as amended, and the Court has considered said aggravating circumstance.

The Court finds that the defendant was not a person under sentence of imprisonment; therefore the Court does not consider the aggravating circumstance listed in § 13A-5-49(1), Code of Alabama, the Court finding that said aggravating circumstance does not exist in this case.

The Court finds that the defendant was not previously convicted of another capital offense, nor previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person; therefore, the Court does not consider the aggravating circumstance listed in § 13A-5-49(2), Code of Alabama, the Court finding that said aggravating circumstance does not exist.

The Court finds that the defendant did not knowingly create a great risk of death to many persons; therefore, the Court does not consider the aggravating circumstance listed in § 13A-5-49(3), Code of Alabama, the Court finding that said aggravating circumstance does not exist.

The Court finds that this offense was not committed while the defendant was engaged or was an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing, or attempting to commit rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping; therefore, the Court does not consider the aggravating circumstance listed in § 13A-5-49(4), Code of Alabama, the Court finding that said aggravating circumstance does not exist.

The Court does not find that the offense was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody; therefore, the Court does not consider the aggravating circumstance listed in § 13A-5-49(5), Code of Alabama, the Court finding that said aggravating circumstance does not exist.

The Court does not find that the offense was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws; therefore, the Court does not consider the aggravating circumstances listed in § 13A-5-49(7), Code of Alabama, the Court finding that said aggravating circumstance does not exist.

The Court does not find that the offense was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel compared to other capital offenses; therefore, the Court does not consider the aggravating circumstance listed in § 13A-5-49(8), Code of Alabama, the Court finding that said aggravating circumstance does not exist.

B. The Court now proceeds to consider the mitigating circumstances as set out and enumerated in Section 13A-5-51, the Code of Alabama, as amended, and other mitigating circumstances proved at the punishment hearing before the jury.

No additional evidence was presented either by the State or by the defense at the sentence hearing before this Court. Both the State and the defense counsel presented arguments.

1. The Court finds from the evidence that the defendant has no significant history*1180 of prior criminal activity; accordingly, the Court does consider this mitigating circumstance, as listed in § 13A-5-51(1), Code of Alabama.

2. The Court finds that the capital offense was not committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance; accordingly, the Court does not consider the mitigating circumstances listed in § 13A-5-51(2), Code of Alabama, the Court finding that said mitigating circumstances does not exist in this case.

3. The Court finds from the evidence that the victim was not a participant in the defendant's conduct or consented to it; therefore, the Court finds that the mitigating circumstance listed in § 13A-5-51(3) Code of Alabama, does not exist, and the Court does not consider it.

4. The Court does not find from the evidence that the defendant was an accomplice in a capital offense committed by another person and that his participation was relatively minor. The Court finds from the evidence in this case that defendant and Kenneth Eugene Smith both killed the victim by hitting her with a galvanized pipe, holding her down with a small blue chair and stabbing her while she was asking them not to hurt her. Therefore, the Court finds that the mitigating circumstance listed in § 13A-5-51(4), Code of Alabama, does not exist, and the Court does not consider it.

5. The Court does not find from the evidence that the defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person; therefore, the Court finds that the mitigating circumstance listed in § 13A-5-51(5), Code of Alabama, does not exist, and the Court does not consider it.

6. The Court does not find from the evidence that the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired; Although evidence was produced by defendant at the sentencing hearing before the jury by Dr. James Crowder, clinical psychologist, that Talwin would have impaired the defendant's judgment, the Court also had evidence before it regarding the defendant's actual actions during and after the murder of Mrs. Sennett which demonstrate that his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was not substantially impaired. The defendant's action in placing cotton socks over his hands prior to the killing, his action in throwing away the murder weapon after the killing, his attempting to make it look like a burglary which had “gone bad,” his throwing away the stereo and burning of his clothes is all evidence that the defendant at the time in question appreciated that his conduct was criminal, and that he might be apprehended, and for that reason did what he could to avoid apprehension. Accordingly, the Court finds that the mitigating circumstance listed in § 13A-5-51(6), Code of Alabama, does not exist, and the Court does not consider it.

7. The Court does find that the defendant was 19 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, and therefore finds that the mitigating circumstance listed in § 13A-5-51(7), Code of Alabama does exist, and the Court does consider it.

8. The Court does find that the jury's recommendation is a mitigating factor, and the Court has considered said mitigating factor at this sentence hearing. However, the Jury was allowed to hear an emotional appeal from the defendant's mother. Although the defendant's mother attempted to blame the defendant's drug addiction on the medication the defendant had taken as a child for his condition diagnosed as “hyperactivity,” there was no proof that such was the case. Dr. James Crowder testified that a child taking ritalin as prescribed for treatment for hyperactivity would have no withdrawal symptoms from said drug when such drug was discontinued. The Court does not find that the defendant's problems during his childhood is a mitigating factor. He was appropriately treated for said condition according to the testimony of Dr. Crowder.

Furthermore, evidence was presented to the jury that the husband of the victim was the instigator of the killing of his wife, but the fact that the victim's husband conspired with the defendant and his co-defendants to kill his wife does not make this defendant any less culpable, and is not a mitigating factor.

9. The Court does find that the defendant's remorse is a mitigating factor.

The Defendant was asked if had anything to say before sentence was imposed on him and he said “No.”

The Court having considered the aggravating circumstance as it was proven, that the murder was done for pecuniary gain and the following mitigating circumstances, namely: the defendant's age, the fact that defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity, his remorse and the jury recommended sentence of life without parole and the Court weighing these, the Court finds that the aggravating circumstance outweighs the mitigating circumstances outlined above. Killing a human being, intentionally and deliberately, for money, evidences a total and complete disregard for the value and uniqueness of human life. The receipt of money by the defendant both prior to the murder and after completing the murder evidences that this total, deliberate and intentional disregard for the value of human life was of a continuous nature, and not a mere impulse. Accordingly the Court finds that there is a reasonable basis for enhancing the jury's recommendation of sentence.

Therefore, on this the 21st day of June, 1989, with the defendant, John Forrest Parker, being present, and having been convicted by a jury of capital murder and the Court having weighed the aggravating circumstance against the mitigating circumstances and factors and the Court having found that the aggravating circumstance outweighs the mitigating circumstances and factors;

It is therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court, and it is the judgment of this Court and its sentence of law that the defendant, John Forrest Parker, suffer death by electrocution. The Sheriff of Colbert County, Alabama, is directed to deliver John Forrest Parker to the custody of the Director of the Department of Corrections and the designated executioner shall, at the proper place for the execution of one sentenced to suffer death by electrocution, cause a current of electricity of sufficient intensity to cause death in the application and continuance of such current to pass through the said John Forrest Parker until said John Forrest Parker is dead.

Mr. Parker, may God have mercy on you.

Done this the 3rd day of December, 1991.
/s/Inge P. Johnson
Presiding Circuit Judge

Parker v. Allen, 565 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2009). (Habeas)

Background: Following affirmance, 610 So.2d 1181, of state capital murder conviction and sentence of death, and exhaustion of state postconviction remedies, state prison inmate sought federal habeas relief. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, No. 00-01846-CV-SLB-PWG, Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, Chief Judge, denied petition, and inmate appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Birch, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) state court did not unreasonably apply federal law by finding that facially race-neutral reasons for juror strikes were not pretextual; (2) prosecutor's improper vouching for state witnesses and advocacy of death penalty in closing argument was not prejudicial; (3) state did not commit Brady violations by failing to disclose information about prosecution witness; (4) no ineffective assistance of counsel was shown from defense counsel's failure to present expert witnesses; (5) police had probable cause to arrest defendant; and (6) no ineffective assistance of counsel was shown from failure to argue inadmissibility of confession. Affirmed. Edmondson, Chief Judge, concurred in the result.

BIRCH, Circuit Judge:

Petitioner-appellant John Forrest Parker appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and denying him relief. Parker sought a vacation of his 1988 conviction for capital murder and his death sentence. After the district court denied Parker's Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 motion for reconsideration, Parker appealed and the district court issued a certificate of appealability on five issues. We conclude that the district court correctly denied habeas relief and AFFIRM.

I. BACKGROUND

In March 1988, Charles Sennett contracted with one of his tenants, Billy Gray Williams, to murder his wife, Elizabeth Dorlene Sennett (“Dorlene”), for $3000. Parker v. State, 587 So.2d 1072, 1078 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) ( “ Parker I”).FN1 Williams, in turn, hired John Parker and Kenneth Eugene Smith for $1000 each to commit the murder. Williams gave Parker $100 to purchase a weapon on 17 March 1988, and promised to pay him the balance when the job was completed. Instead of buying a weapon, Parker used the $100 for drugs and injected 3 cubic centimeters of Talwin, a narcotic analgesic (painkiller), while en route to the Sennetts' residence on 18 March. Parker drove his vehicle to the Sennetts' residence while Smith, who was in the passenger seat, sharpened Parker's survival knife. Parker parked his car behind the Sennetts' home, told Dorlene that her husband had given them permission to look at the property as a hunting site and, upon receiving Dorlene's approval, walked into a wooded area with Smith. They later returned to the house and received permission from Dorlene to use her bathroom. While in the bathroom, Parker put cotton socks onto his hands. He then exited the bathroom, jumped Dorlene, and began hitting her. Parker and Smith hit Dorlene with a galvanized pipe and stabbed her while she pled with them not to hurt her. Consistent with their plan, they broke the glass in the medicine cabinet and took a stereo and video cassette recorder (VCR) to make the assault look like it was done during a burglary. Parker later burned his clothes and threw the stereo off a bridge, and he and Smith threw away the knife that they used. Parker subsequently received the additional $900 for the murder. Parker v. State, 610 So.2d 1171, App. II at 1178-79 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) ( “Parker II”); In re Parker, 610 So.2d 1181, 1184-85 (Ala.1992) (“ Parker III”).

FN1. The record in this case consists of the district court filings and the state court filings, which were filed in this record as an exhibit to R1-17. The state court filings are compiled in two sets of volumes, supplements and other documents. Volumes 1-14 are the record from Parker's direct appeal; the volumes from these are designated in this opinion as “Vol.” Volumes 1-16 are the record from Parker's post-conviction proceedings; these volumes are designated in this opinion as “PC Vol.” Citations to the state court exhibits will be hereafter indicated as “Exh. Vol.” and “Exh. PC Vol.”

When Sennett arrived home, he found his house ransacked and Dorlene close to death, and called Colbert County Sheriff's Investigator Ronnie May at 11:44 A.M. May dispatched a rescue squad and sheriff's deputies to the Sennetts' home. May and another deputy arrived at the Sennetts' home about 12:05 P.M., and the rescue squad arrived soon thereafter. Dorlene was transported to the hospital, and seen by Dr. David Parks McKinley. Resuscitation efforts failed and Dorlene was declared dead as a result of cardiac arrest and exsanguination. An examination of her body revealed multiple stab wounds to the right side of her chest, the right side of her neck, the base of her neck, forehead, nose, and scalp, and contusions on her nose and forehead. Hairs found at the crime scene in a cap located near Dorlene's body were consistent with Smith's known hair sample, and on an afghan that had been wrapped around Dorlene's body were consistent with fibers later taken from Parker's knife. Parker I, 587 So.2d at 1089. The VCR taken from the Sennetts' house was found inside Smith's residence. Parker I, 587 So.2d at 1090.

In April 1988, Parker was indicted for the capital murder of Dorlene by beating and stabbing her with a knife for the pecuniary consideration of $1000 in violation Ala.Code 13A-5-40.FN2 At trial, he was found guilty by a jury; the jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The sentencing judge, however, overrode the jury and sentenced Parker to death on 21 June 1989.FN3 See Parker I, 587 So.2d at 1076, 1100. On appeal, the case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Parker's Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) claim and for the district court to reweigh and make new findings regarding the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.FN4 Parker I, 587 So.2d at 1100. Following an evidentiary hearing on remand, the trial judge found that the prosecution had not violated Batson by using its peremptory strikes to remove eight black venire members. Parker II, 610 So.2d at 1172, 1177. The trial judge also found that the aggravating circumstance of murder for pecuniary gain outweighed the mitigating circumstances, including Parker's lack of a prior significant criminal history, age at the time of the offense, demonstration of remorse, and the jury's recommendation of life without parole. Id. at 1172, 1179-81. Parker's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the appellate court and the Alabama Supreme Court. See id. at 1173; In re Parker, 610 So.2d 1181, 1187 (1992) (“ Parker III”). Parker's petition for writ of certiorari was denied. See Parker v. Alabama, 509 U.S. 929, 113 S.Ct. 3053, 125 L.Ed.2d 737 (1993) (“ Parker IV”).

FN2. The offense of capital murder includes “Murder done for a pecuniary or other valuable consideration or pursuant to a contract or for hire.” Ala.Code § 13A-5-40.

Charles Sennett, a Church of Christ minister, committed suicide on 25 March 1988, seven days after Dorlene died. Parker I, 587 So.2d at 1078. Williams was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Williams v. State, 565 So.2d 1233 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied (Ala.1990) (No. 89-1184). Smith was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Smith v. State, 908 So.2d 273 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 928, 126 S.Ct. 148, 163 L.Ed.2d 277 (2005). FN3. Under Ala.Code § 13A-5-47(e), the jury's sentencing recommendation is to be given consideration but “is not binding upon the court.”

FN4. On appeal, Parker raised twenty-four issues, including: (1) the prosecutor's use of his peremptory strikes in violation of Batson; (2) the prosecutor's failure to disclose a witness's other convictions and the favorable treatment he received in exchange for his testimony in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); (3) the illegality of the warrantless search of his home; (4) the involuntariness of his post-arrest statement; (5) improper prosecutorial closing arguments; and (6) his court-appointed counsel's lack of required experience. Parker I, 587 So.2d at 1076, 1078, 1082-85, l087-93, 1095-98, 1100.

Parker moved for post-conviction relief under Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 in 1994, and filed an amended petition in 1996.FN5 Following an evidentiary hearing, the state trial court denied the petition. The denial was affirmed on appeal, Parker v. State, 768 So.2d 1020 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (“ Parker V”), and Parker's petition for writ of certiorari was denied, Ex Parte Parker, 780 So.2d 811 (Ala.1999) (“ Parker VI”).

FN5. In his initial and amended Rule 32 petitions, Parker raised the eighteen issues, including: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel during the pretrial investigation and proceedings, jury selection, trial, post-trial motions, sentencing, and on appeal; (2) the inadmissibility of Parker's statements made during and after his arrest; (3) unconstitutionality of Parker's statements taken while he was under the influence of alcohol and drugs; (4) the trial court's failure to suppress Parker's statements and to allow their admission as trial evidence; (5) the trial court's erroneous rulings on his objections during the suppression hearing and the trial; and (6) prosecutorial misconduct.

Parker filed a timely petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in 2000 and amended the petition in 2001.FN6 The district court denied the petition and denied reconsideration. Following Parker's notice of appeal, the district court granted a certificate of appealability on the following issues: (1) whether jurors were excluded by the prosecutor on the basis of race, contrary to clearly established federal law and in violation of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) whether the prosecutor's improper closing arguments denied Parker due process, a fair trial, and a reliable sentencing proceeding in violation of the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) whether the state's failure to disclose information relevant to a witness's testimony was a violation of Brady and the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments; (4) whether Parker received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial in violation of his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments; and (5) whether Parker's statement and other evidence were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

FN6. In both his original and amended habeas petitions, Parker raised the following issues: (1) unconstitutional exclusion of jurors on the basis of race and gender in violation of Batson; (2) improper prosecutorial closing argument; (3) trial court's erroneous jury instruction on reasonable doubt; (4) prosecutor's Brady violation concerning a witness; (5) ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the suppression hearing, pretrial investigation, jury selection, trial, closing argument, jury charge, sentencing phase, and in their motions to withdraw; (6) denial of due process because of medication; (7) trial court's failure to strike prejudiced jurors; (8) trial court's override of the jury verdict; (9) trial court's admission of Parker's statement made at the time of his illegal arrest; (10) trial court's denial of Parker's motion for change of venue; (11) trial court's failure to recuse; (12) trial court's unconstitutional admission of Parker's statement; (13) trial court's failure to instruct on lesser included offenses including intentional and reckless murder; and (14) trial court's unconstitutional testimony. In his amended petition, Parker raised the following additional issues: (15) the trial court erred on remand for sentencing by failing to provide Parker with an opportunity to present evidence, argue, or speak; (16) his arrest was illegal based on the officers' lack of jurisdiction; (17) his statements were the result of illegal and unconstitutional duress; and (18) the indicting grand jury was selected in a discriminatory and unconstitutional manner.

II. DISCUSSION

We review the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus de novo, but are limited in our review of every issue decided in the state courts by a “ ‘general framework of substantial deference.’ ” Crowe v. Hall, 490 F.3d 840, 844 (11th Cir.2007) (quoting Diaz v. Sec'y of the Dep't of Corr., 402 F.3d 1136, 1141 (11th Cir.2005)). We will not, therefore, disturb the decisions of the Alabama courts unless those decisions are “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” or were “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Under § 2254(d)(1), a state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if the state court either (1) applied a rule that contradicts the governing law as set forth by the Supreme Court or (2) arrived at a different result from the Supreme Court when presented with “materially indistinguishable facts.” Putman v. Head, 268 F.3d 1223, 1241 (11th Cir.2001). A state court decision involves an “unreasonable application” of clearly established Supreme Court law if the law is “applied ... to the facts ... in an objectively unreasonable manner.” Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 25, 123 S.Ct. 357, 360, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002).

A. Juror Exclusion Based on Race

Parker argues that, over his objection, the prosecution struck eight of nine qualified black venire members. He contends that the trial court's finding on remand that the prosecutor struck the jurors on facially-neutral grounds is not supported by the record because eight of the seated jurors had exactly the same characteristics that the prosecution identified as the bases for excluding four black venire members. He contends that the prosecution's explanations for striking the venire members and for failing to strike other similarly situated white venire members are inconsistent with its failure to question the white venire members about their traffic violations and personal and family criminal histories.

The prosecution exercised peremptory strikes against eight of the nine black venire members. The stricken black venire members included Juror 3, Sheila Armstead; Juror 21, Thykle L. Coman; Juror 25, Jeffrey S. Davis; Juror 67, Willie M. Mayes; Juror 77, Cynthia Montgomery; Juror 83, Annie O. Owes; Juror 120, Eugene L. Watkins; and Juror 121, Mary A. Webb. Black venire member Carter Triplett, Juror 113, was selected for the jury.

During voir dire, none of the black jurors responded positively when asked whether they believed that the death penalty should be applied in the case of a murder. The prosecution then used 26 of its 28 strikes to strike individuals who did not answer favorably toward the death penalty. The reasons provided by the prosecution for exercising these strikes included (1) Coman's general opposition to the death penalty;FN7 (2) the belief that ComanFN8 and Webb,FN9 who had taken psychology classes or training, would give “undue emphasis” to a defense psychologist's testimony, R1-17, Exh. Vol. 3 at 402-04; (3) *1268 the belief that Armstead,FN10 Coman,FN11 Montgomery,FN12 and Owes,FN13 who each were related to someone who had been charged with a crime, might be “prejudice[d] against the State,” Exh. Evid. HR at id. at 17-18, 20-24, 32-36, 38-40; and (4) the belief that Watkins,FN14 who had a “series of traffic offenses” and “arrests,” might think “that the State ... [was] picking on him,” “not be open minded ... to the testimony of law enforcement officers,” and have an inability “to follow the law.” Id. at 24-25, 40-41. Davis indicated that, if the jury was sequestered, he would have problems staying overnight.FN15 Mayes worked with members of co-defendant Williams' family and had overheard conversations regarding the case. [ Id. at 21-22.]

FN7. Coman indicated that she was opposed to the death penalty under any circumstance and would always prefer a sentence of life without parole to death. FN8. Coman also knew Sennett's girlfriend and possible defense witness, Doris Tidwell. FN9. Webb had taken a psychology course during college. FN10. Armstead's mother, Elsie Armstead, was under prosecution in Colbert County for theft of property. FN11. Coman's relative, Robert Coman, had a drug conviction in Colbert County. FN12. Montgomery's cousins were prosecuted on drug charges “factually related” to Parker's case. The prosecutor also thought that Montgomery had an out-of-wedlock child and might be sympathetic to Parker, who also had an out-of-wedlock child. FN13. Owe's brother-in-law, Williams Owes, had a Colbert County arrest warrant pending for a drug charge at the time of the trial. Owes's husband, Thomas Owes, was a defendant in a civil forfeiture case filed by Alabama and the prosecution believed that this would prejudice her against them. She also knew defense attorney Gene Hamby. FN14. Although the prosecution conceded that Watkins's five traffic offenses were “minor” and insufficient to justify a strike, they argued that the offenses indicated a pattern. The prosecutor did not strike anyone with a single speeding offense. FN15. Davis said that he did not want to serve on the jury.

White venire members were stricken for some of the same reasons. Juror 92, Betty Rickard, was stricken for her general opposition to the death penalty; Jurors 9, Rebecca Barr; 58, Sharon Landers; 63, Rebecca Livingston; 82, Marshal Newman; Rickard; and 129, Marty Willingham, were stricken because they had prior training or course-work in psychology; and Willingham had a record of minor traffic offenses. Jurors 40, Pamela Hendon; 53, Jenaine Johnson; and Jennifer Razor said that it would be difficult for them to stay overnight. Juror 68, Birdie McCarley was stricken because she knew members of Parker's family.

Eight of the eleven white seated jurors were, however, related to someone who had been convicted of a felony, had taken a psychology course, knew one of the defense attorneys, or had been convicted of more than one traffic offense. Seated white juror Joni Simpson admitted that she had taken a course in psychology. The prosecutor admitted that he erred in not striking Simpson because he intended to strike all of the venire members who had taken psychology classes and his note indicated that he had. Simpson and seated juror Gary Highfield knew defense attorney, Gene Hamby, and seated juror Teddy Roe Mansell knew defense attorney H. Thomas Heflin, Jr.'s law partner, who had represented Mansell's ex-wife during child support contempt proceedings. Seated jurors Highfield,FN16 Mansell,FN17 Mike Quillen,FN18 Williams Glenn Pettus,FN19 Simpson,FN20 *1269 and alternate juror Johnny O. Miller, all had traffic offense records.FN21 Many of the seated jurors' traffic offenses occurred outside of Colbert County, and Quillen's traffic offenses occurred in Tennessee. Highfield, Mansell, Pettus and Simpson had only one traffic ticket each from Colbert County. Mansell had been prosecuted for child support contempt proceedings. Seated jurors James Ayers, Highfield, LaDecca Holt, Lucy Lowry, Noel Gene Morris, and Quillen were related to someone who had a felony conviction. The convictions of the family members of Ayers, Lowry, and Morris were outside of the five year scope of the prosecutor's investigation.FN22 The convictions of the family members of Highfield, Lowry, Morris, and Quillen occurred outside of Colbert County, Alabama.FN23 LeDecca Holt's “uncle by marriage,” Curtis Sheffield, had a felony conviction in Colbert County.FN24 Exh. Evid. HR at 64.

FN16. Highfield said that, at the time of the trial, he had at least two speeding convictions. FN17. At the time of the trial, Mansell had two speeding convictions. FN18. Quillen only remembered having had one traffic ticket before the trial. FN19. Pettus had at least two prior tickets for driving while intoxicated. FN20. Simpson testified that, at the time of the trial, she had received three speeding tickets and one reckless driving ticket. FN21. White venire members Wiley K. Arnold, Beyersdorf, Freeman, Goskey, and Murphrey had traffic offense records but were excused. FN22. Ayers' uncle's conviction occurred at least 12 years earlier, Lowry's uncle's conviction about 9 years earlier, and Morris's brother's conviction about 25 years earlier. FN23. Highfield's relative's conviction was in Madison County, Alabama; Lowry's uncle's conviction was in Florida; Morris's brother's conviction was in Lawrence County, Alabama; and Quillen's cousin's conviction was in Franklin County, Alabama. FN24. The record does not indicate when Sheffield's conviction occurred.

The prosecution used 28 percent of its total strikes to strike black venire members, who composed about seven percent of the total venire and eight percent of the seated jury. Acknowledging that black jurors were struck, the prosecution argued that “race had nothing to do” with the strikes because they were not “paying attention to race.” Id. at 27. During its first twelve strikes, the prosecution used eight strikes against blacks. In making the strikes, the prosecution relied on information regarding repeat traffic violations and criminal prosecutions of the jurors or their families that its investigator had obtained and did not question the jurors if that information indicated a potential problem that might lead to bias. The investigator's search spanned five years, which was the amount of time that the prosecuting district attorney had been in office and that the records were retained in the county clerk's office. Traffic investigations were performed on any venire members who were “thought” to have a history of traffic offenses based on the prosecution's investigator's interviews with law enforcement officers. Id. at 41. The prosecutor explained that he did not question the venire members regarding information that he had obtained from their individual voir dire questionnaires or his investigator because he did not want to embarrass them in front of the other venire members. He acknowledged that, although individual voir dires were available, he did not use them. He said that he had no knowledge of Holt's family member's crime and “missed” it during the investigation. Id. at 90.

On direct appeal, the state appellate court affirmed the trial judge's “commendable thoroughness and ... conscientiousness” in making findings and concluding that Batson was not violated. Parker II, 610 So.2d at 1172. The state trial court compared each of the reasons for the prosecutor's strikes, noted the prosecution's practice regarding its investigatory methods, and commented that, even if the prosecution had done a state-wide investigation of the venire members' traffic records, it would only have been able to get records for five years. Id. at 1173-76. Based on *1270 the analysis of the strikes and investigatory methods, the trial court “d[id] not find that there was a significant disparate treatment of [the venire-members] with the same characteristics.” Id. at 1176.

The district court found that the prosecution's failure to strike the white jurors with traffic convictions or family member convictions that occurred outside of Colbert County or more than five years earlier was not inconsistent with its striking of black jurors who had traffic convictions and family member convictions that occurred within Colbert County within the last five years. It found that the trial court's conclusion satisfied Batson and that its decision was neither contrary to nor involved an unreasonable application of the law.

Because it is constitutionally permissible for the prosecutor to retain jurors who are “death qualified” and to strike jurors who state that they could not impose the death penalty under any circumstance, Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 165-67, 175-77, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 1760-62, 1766-67, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986), the prosecution legitimately struck Coman.

In Batson, the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional for the prosecution to challenge potential jurors based solely on their race or on the assumption that because of their race they will be unable to consider the case impartially. 476 U.S. at 89, 106 S.Ct. at 1719. A defendant may raise the necessary inference of “purposeful discrimination in selection of the petit jury” based “solely on evidence concerning the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges” during the trial. Id. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1723.

[T]he defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant's race. Second, the defendant is entitled to rely on the [undisputed] fact ... that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate. Finally, the defendant must show that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. Id., 106 S.Ct. at 1723 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). It is not necessary to show that all or even a majority of the prosecutor's strikes were discriminatory; any single strike demonstrated to result from purposeful discrimination is sufficient. See McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1311 (11th Cir.2005). In Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 402, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 1366, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), Batson claims were extended to defendants regardless of whether they share the same race as the struck jurors.

Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the prosecution to explain, in clearly and reasonably specific terms, the legitimate race-neutral reasons for striking the jurors in question. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 98 n. 20, 106 S.Ct. at 1723, 1724 n. 20. The court must then confront the “decisive question” and evaluate the credibility of the prosecution's explanation, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 365, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1869, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991), “in light of all evidence with a bearing on it.” Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 252, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 2331, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005). Finally, the court must determine whether the defendant has established purposeful discrimination. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. at 1724.

The reasons stated by the prosecutor provide the only reasons on which the prosecutor's credibility is to be judged. United States v. Houston, 456 F.3d 1328, 1335 (11th Cir.2006). The credibility of the prosecution's explanation is to be evaluated considering the “totality of the relevant facts,” including whether members of a race were disproportionately excluded. Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 363, 111 S.Ct. at 1868 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Questions arise regarding the credibility of the explanation and the possibility that the explanation is pretextual (1) when the prosecutor's explanation for a strike is equally applicable to jurors of a different race who have not been stricken, Caldwell v. Maloney, 159 F.3d 639, 651 (1st Cir.1998); (2) upon a comparative analysis of the jurors struck and those who remained, Turner v. Marshall, 121 F.3d 1248, 1251-52 (9th Cir.1997), including the attributes of the white and black venire members, Houston, 456 F.3d at 1338; (3) or when the prosecution fails to engage in a meaningful voir dire examination on a subject that it alleges it is concerned, Miller-El, 545 U.S. at 246, 125 S.Ct. at 2328. Evidence of purposeful discrimination may be shown through side-by-side comparisons confirming that the reasons for striking a black panelist also apply to similar non-black panelists who were permitted to serve. See id. at 241, 125 S.Ct. at 2325. A prosecutor's reasonable explanation for objecting to a black panelist based on his or her opinions or comments may be undercut by the prosecution's failure to object to other white panelists who expressed similar views, and may be evidence of pretext. Id. at 248, 125 S.Ct. at 2329-30. The prosecutor's failure to strike similarly situated jurors is not pretextual, however, “where there are relevant differences between the struck jurors and the comparator jurors.” United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968, 1004 (11th Cir.2001). The prosecutor's explanation “does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible; so long as the reason is not inherently discriminatory, it suffices.” Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338, 126 S.Ct. 969, 973-74, 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Neither a prosecutor's mistaken belief about a juror nor failure to ask a voir dire question provides “clear and convincing” evidence of pretext. McNair, 416 F.3d at 1311-12.

If the fact-finder determines that the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations are true, the petitioner may obtain relief only by showing that the state court's conclusion was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented during the state proceedings. Miller El, 545 U.S. at 240, 125 S.Ct. at 2325. Consistent with § 2254(e)(1), we presume the state court's factual findings to be correct unless the petitioner rebuts that presumption with clear and convincing evidence. Id. “The standard is demanding but not insatiable; ... deference does not by definition preclude relief.” Id. (citation and internal punctuation omitted). We cannot, however, substitute our evaluation of the record for that of the state trial court, as we presume the state court's factual findings to be correct, and cannot grant a habeas petition unless the state court's credibility findings regarding the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for the Batson challenge are “unreasonable ... in light of the evidence presented in the state court.” Rice, 546 U.S. at 337-39, 126 S.Ct. at 973-74.

Based on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals' remand for the prosecution to offer race-neutral reasons for striking the jurors, we assume that a prima facie showing under Batson was made. See Parker I, 587 So.2d at 1077; Novaton, 271 F.3d at 1003 (assuming a prima facie showing when the district court required *1272 the prosecution to offer race-neutral reasons for its strikes). Based on the state court's application of the law, acceptance of the prosecutor's stated reasons for his strikes, and consideration of the differences in the situations of the stricken and seated jurors, the district court did not err in finding that the state court reasonably applied Batson and that Parker failed to prove “purposeful discrimination” under Batson.

B. Improper Closing Arguments

Parker argues that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals' decision regarding the prosecutor's vouching for witnesses during the guilt-phase closing argument and arguing that the death penalty should be applied because of uncharged criminal behavior is an unreasonable application of the law and an unreasonable application of the facts. Alabama concedes that the prosecutor's arguments regarding two of the witnesses were improper, but maintains that the other statements were not improper and that none of the statements rise to the level of a violation of due process.

During the guilt-phase closing argument, the prosecutor summarized the evidence against Parker and commented about the testimony of three of Alabama's witnesses, Donald Buckman, Investigator May, and Dr. McKinley. Regarding Buckman's testimony, the prosecutor “assure[d]” the jury that Buckman “did not have anything against John Parker.” Exh. Vol. 8 at 1576. Regarding May's testimony, the prosecutor stated:

I've known Ronnie May for a long time and worked with him and, of course, when we put a witness on the witness stand we vouch for their credibility just as the defense does when they call a witness. But I can assure you right now that what Ronnie May testified to you about-about anything, but particularly about the statement that I'm, talking about right now that was given to him on March the 31st by Mr. Parker. I can assure you he told you the truth, what was told him by Mr. Parker. And I don't for any one minute think that any of y'all think he would get up and make it up or fabricate it or anything like that. But I can assure you, ladies and gentlemen, what he told you is the truth with regard to that statement. Id. at 1575. Regarding McKinley, the prosecutor asked the jury to consider:

Who is best qualified to make the judgment about the potential murder weapon? ... [T]he forensic pathologist who did the autopsy who made exacting measurements about the wounds and examined those wounds? Whose job it was to determine specifically what the cause of death was and to determine, if possible, what type of weapon might have been used and some possible characteristics for that weapon? ... [O]r is it the doctor who worked on the person in the emergency room and was primarily trying to save her life .... I'm not try[ing] to in anyway run down Dr. McKinley. I know Dr. McKinley. He's a personal acquaintance of mine and I can assure he's ... giving you his opinion, his best opinion, but again I say to you; who is best qualified to give that opinion? Id. at 1581-82.

In his final closing argument, the prosecutor explained to the jury that they were “the most important part of this whole case” because their function was to listen to the evidence and decide what the truth is. You decide who that has testified to you is telling the truth, who is not telling the truth, who is being evasive with you and you ultimately decide the true facts in the case upon which your verdict is to be based .... Exh. Vol. 9 at 1608.

The prosecutor, however, then continued: There is no such thing as a case that you couldn't look at long enough and hard enough and find some kind of little inconsistency in the testimony and the reason for that is, I submit to you at least from the State's witnesses they were trying very hard to tell you the truth and the truth as they saw it .... [W]e vouch for the credibility of those witnesses by putting them on the stand and I submit to you that they've told the truth .... Id. at 1611.

During the jury instructions, the trial judge instructed the jury that they were: the sole judges as to the weight that should be give to all of the testimony in the case ... [t]he jury's role is to determine the facts.

You ladies and gentlemen of the jury[ ] take the testimony of the witnesses, together with all proper and reasonable inferences therefrom, apply your common sense, and in an impartial and honest way[,] determine what you believe to be the truth. You should weigh all of the evidence and ... give it just such weight as you think it is entitled to receive. In doing so[,] you may take into consideration any interest which any witness might have shown to have in the outcome of this case. If you believe that any material part of the evidence of any witness was willfully false, you may disregard all of the testimony of such witness. Id. at 1655-56.

In determining what the true facts are in the case, you are limited to the evidence that has been presented from the witness stand as opposed to matters that have been stated by the attorneys in the course of the trial. What the attorneys have said ... is not evidence in the case. What they have argued to you ... is not evidence. Id. at 1641-42.

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals found that the prosecutor's statements were “improper attempts to bolster witnesses by vouching for their credibility.” Parker I, 587 So.2d at 1094. It concluded, however, that the comments, “although clearly erroneous, do not undermine the fundamental fairness of the trial and contribute to a miscarriage of justice.” Id. (citation and internal quotations omitted). In reaching that conclusion, it viewed the prosecutor's comments in the context of the entire trial and noted that (1) during the defense closing argument, Parker's attorney did not contend that Parker's confession was false, but conceded that Parker admitted that he was at the crime scene and had gone there to commit a burglary, and (2) any prejudice was cured by the trial judge's extensive cautionary instructions to the jury that they were only to consider the evidence and not the attorneys' comments. Id. at 1094-95.

During a trial, counsel have a duty to refrain from commenting on their personal views on a defendant's guilt and the evidence. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 7, 9, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1042-43, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). A prosecutor's comments during a closing argument are evaluated to determine whether the comments so unfairly affected the trial as to deny the defendant due process, Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 2474-71, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986), when considered “in the context of the entire trial in light of any curative instructions.” United States v. Abraham, 386 F.3d 1033, 1036 (11th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (quotation *1274 marks and citation omitted). Due process is denied “when there is a reasonable probability,” or “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome,” that, but for the improper remarks, “the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.” United States v. Eyster, 948 F.2d 1196, 1206-07 (11th Cir.1991) (citations and internal punctuation omitted). The prosecutor's comments must both (1) be improper and (2) “prejudicially affect the substantial rights of the defendant.” United States v. Thompson, 422 F.3d 1285, 1297 (11th Cir.2005). A prosecutor's comments constitute improper “vouching” if they are “based on the government's reputation or allude to evidence not formally before the jury.” Eyster, 948 F.2d at 1206. Although improper vouching is grounds for reversal, it may be cured if the remarks are not “substantially prejudicial” and any lingering prejudice is remedied by a careful cautionary instruction. United States v. Sarmiento, 744 F.2d 755, 762-65 (11th Cir.1984).

As the Supreme Court of Alabama correctly noted, Parker's strategy was to argue that he assaulted but did not murder Dorlene. Parker III, 610 So.2d at 1184. During his closing arguments, Parker's attorney used Parker's statement to support that strategy. He was thus not prejudiced by any enhanced credibility given to the testimony of Buckman or May since their testimony that Parker had gone to the Sennetts' residence was consistent with this strategy and would not have adversely affected the jury verdict. He was also not prejudiced by the prosecutor's reference to his personal acquaintance with McKinley; the prosecutor based his comments on a comparison of McKinley's and the forensic pathologist's qualifications regarding their thoughts on the murder weapon and was based on facts in evidence. Further, any enhanced credibility given to McKinley's testimony was consistent with Parker's witness's testimony that he did not believe that Parker's knife was the murder weapon.

Buckman testified that Parker and Smith drove to his house in Parker's car on the morning of the murder and that Smith asked where he could find a gun. May testified that Parker admitted in his statement that, on the day of the murder, he and Smith drove to the Sennetts' home in his car, jumped Dorlene, held her down with a chair, and hit her with a galvanized pipe; Smith did all of the stabbing; and they stole the Sennetts' VCR and stereo and broke some glassware to provide the appearance of a robbery. May also testified that Parker did not know who covered Dorlene, did not know the number of times she was stabbed or the location of the wounds, never stated that she was dead when they left, and denied turning over a china cabinet that the police found turned over in the room where Dorlene was found.

McKinley, Dorlene's emergency room physician, did not think Parker's knife was the instrument that caused her injuries based on his examinations of Dorlene's knife wounds, the knife, and the autopsy photographs and report. He admitted that he had not measured the depth of the wounds but noted that he determined that the wounds extended “from the skin all the way into the chest cavity” or at least two inches or more. Exh. Vol. 6 at 1056-57. He also explained that, although the knife had a serrated edge, he did not observe any “sawing effect” on the wounds, which were described in the autopsy report as having a “sharp” and “fairly smooth rounded edge.” Id. at 1059. He conceded that the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy had more specialized training and would have probably made more specific *1275 detailed observations about the knife wounds.

During his closing argument, Parker's attorney stipulated twice that Parker was at the Sennett home on the day of the murder and that Parker and Smith assaulted Dorlene. He argued that, consistent with May's testimony, Parker and Smith merely assaulted, cut, stabbed, and robbed Dorlene leaving her unconscious but alive. He maintained that, when Sennett returned to his home and found Dorlene, he murdered her to prevent her from divorcing him over the affair that he was having. He explained that, although only one knife had been admitted into evidence, there were two sets of knife wounds on Dorlene's body. He reminded the jury that Dorlene was alive when the paramedics arrived about 20 minutes after Sennett's emergency call and that the testimony indicated that she would not have survived long after being stabbed. He also reviewed with the jury that the exhibit knife was six inches long, one and one-quarter to one and one-half inches wide, and one-eighth inch thick, but that some of the knife wounds appeared to be two inches long, three-quarters inch wide, and one half inch thick.

In arguing for the death penalty, the prosecutor noted that: certainly we have had some evidence of criminal activity on the part of [Parker]. It came out in the form of [ ] previous criminal activities, about drugs, selling and using drugs. I believe there was some mention of stealing gasoline on one occasion. So again, there is evidence of prior criminal activity. Exh. Vol. 9 at 1770.

He maintained that the jury should “do the right thing” by imposing a “proper verdict” of death, and asked “how many times, how many times does a person have to do something like this before ... [being classified] basically as a bad person.” Id. at 1777, 1780. Despite the prosecutor's argument, the jury returned a verdict recommending, by a ten to two vote, that Parker be sentenced to life without parole. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals found that any error caused by the prosecutor's sentencing-phase comments was harmless “because the jury, by a vote of ten to two, recommended life without parole.” Parker I, 587 So.2d at 1095.

A petitioner cannot show sentencing phase prejudice when the jury recommends a sentence of life instead of death. Routly v. Singletary, 33 F.3d 1279, 1297 (11th Cir.1994) (per curiam). Parker cannot, therefore, demonstrate that, but for the prosecutor's death penalty argument the outcome of the sentencing phase would have been different. The district court did not err in finding that the Alabama courts' decisions were neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of the law, and were not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

C. Failure to disclose information in violation of Brady v. Maryland

Parker contends that, despite his motions and requests for all favorable and exculpatory evidence, the prosecution failed to reveal that one of its witnesses, Teddy Lynn White, had more convictions than it initially disclosed. He maintains that the facts of White's additional convictions, his eligibility for release, the withdrawal of his initial release date, and his subsequent release were discoverable and highly prejudicial. He argues that the Alabama courts incorrectly interpreted Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) by finding that the prosecutor's lack of knowledge of White's convictions or early release excused the prosecution from complying with Brady.

Parker moved for favorable and exculpatory discovery in May 1988 and in March and May 1989. In response to these requests, Alabama produced a statement of White dated 19 May 1989. In this statement, White explained that he was serving a sentence for burglary. White stated that, about one to two weeks before the murder, Parker had asked him to sell him a gun and had told White that he and “Kenny” planned to murder someone for money. Exh. Vol. 14 at 2672-76. At a pre-trial motions hearing, in response to Parker's Brady claims, the prosecutor explained that he had provided Parker's attorney with “a complete copy of [his] file.” Exh. Vol.1, R5 at 105.

During the trial, the judge overruled Parker's objection to White's testimony. Parker argued that the statement that the prosecution had provided to him did not indicate any exculpatory evidence, including White's criminal record. White then testified, consistent with his prior statement, about his conversation with Parker before the murder. White answered “Yes” when asked whether he had been convicted of a felony “on more than one occasion,” and stated that all of his felonies were burglaries. Exh. Vol. 8 at 1483-84. He also responded that he had not been promised anything, including that there would be no objections to his release, in exchange for his testimony.

During the motion for new trial hearing, however, Parker's counsel learned that, at the time of White's testimony on 6 June 1989, White had been convicted of theft, receiving stolen property, burglary, and unlawful breaking and entering. White also had an earlier burglary conviction in 1985. Parker's counsel also learned that, although White was originally scheduled to be released on 24 May 1989, his release was delayed on 19 May 1989 (the same day that he provided his statement). White had submitted a request for the Supervised Intensive Restitution Program (SIR) in March 1989. His application was approved and he was scheduled for SIR release on 24 May 1989. On 10 May 1989, however, the Lauderdale County District Attorney filed a “protest” to White's placement in SIR. Exh. Vol. 10 at 1845-46, 1850-51. On 26 May 1989, the prison's Director of Classification disapproved of the protest and advised that White was to be placed into SIR on 26 May 1989 “regardless of the protest.” Id. at 1851, 1863-64. On 12 June 1989 (one week after his testimony in Parker's trial in Colbert County), White's release into SIR was approved and, on 14 June 1999, he was released from confinement and put into the SIR program.

On 18 May 1989, while White's SIR application was being reviewed, May was advised that White might have a connection with Parker's case. May attempted to have White interviewed immediately, but was unable to have the interview conducted until 19 May 1989.

On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals found that there was “no evidence that the prosecution suppressed any evidence whatsoever.” Parker I, 587 So.2d at 1086. It noted that (1) the contention that White's testimony was secured in exchange for his release was “supported only by a coincidence of facts,” (2) Parker was aware that White would testify before the trial, and (3) there was no evidence that the prosecution had obtained or had possession of White's arrest history or knowledge of his prior convictions. Id. at 1086-87.

The district court held that the Alabama court did not unreasonably apply the Brady suppression element and that the decision was not based on an unreasonable *1277 determination of the facts. It also held that Parker failed to prove prejudice with regard to either claim.

Once a defendant requests the discovery of any favorable evidence material to either guilt or sentence, the prosecution's suppression of such evidence, whether in good or bad faith, violates due process. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1196-97. The prosecutor has a duty not only to disclose such favorable evidence but also “to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government's behalf ....” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 432, 437, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1565, 1567, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). The duty exists whether or not the prosecutor knew of the existence of the evidence if the evidence was in the possession of the government arm or generally provided only to governmental entities. Martinez v. Wainwright, 621 F.2d 184, 186-87 (5th Cir.1980). The prosecution does not, however, have an obligation to seek evidence of which it has no knowledge or which is not in its possession. United States v. Luis-Gonzalez, 719 F.2d 1539, 1548 (11th Cir.1983). Further, there is no suppression if the defendant knew of the information or had equal access to obtaining it. Maharaj v. Sec'y of the Dep't of Corr., 432 F.3d 1292, 1315 n. 4 (11th Cir.2005). In Alabama, a defendant has access to convictions records which are “matters of public record” and “available through counsel's own efforts.” Ex parte Perkins, 920 So.2d 599, 606 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (per curiam).

To demonstrate a Brady violation, a defendant must show that: (1) the cumulative effect of evidence was favorable because it was exculpatory or impeaching; (2) the evidence was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) the evidence was material; and (4) that the failure to disclose the evidence was prejudicial. Bradley v. Nagle, 212 F.3d 559, 566 (11th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). The prosecution is not required to provide its entire file to the defense, but must disclose “material” evidence. Stephens v. Hall, 407 F.3d 1195, 1203 (11th Cir.2005) (citing United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3380, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)). Excluded evidence is material “only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A ‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682, 105 S.Ct. at 3383.

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reasonably applied Brady in finding that the prosecutor did not suppress evidence of White's convictions. The prosecutor provided Parker with all of the information that he had and there was no showing that the prosecutor had knowledge of White's other convictions. White's conviction record was available to Parker's attorneys and used by them in support of the motion for new trial. Further, Parker did not show prejudice. The jury heard White's testimony that he had multiple convictions for burglary; his convictions for theft and breaking and entering were not materially different enough to provide additional bases for discrediting his testimony. Further, even if White's testimony was discredited, same or similar testimony was presented that Parker was looking for a gun on the morning of the murder and that Parker admitted to participating in a murder for hire scheme. FN25 Parker is, therefore, also *1278 unable to show materiality for White's arrest record.

FN25. Donald Larry Buckman testified that, on the morning of the murder, Parker and Smith visited Buckman's home but stayed in Parker's car. Buckman said that Smith asked him if he knew where they could find a gun. After Buckman responded that he did not know, Smith asked if Buckman wanted to take a ride with them, but Buckman declined.

May testified that Parker said initially that he was given $1000 to allow Williams and Smith to use his car to kill Dorlene. Later, while testifying regarding Parker's admission to his participation in the crime, May said that Parker told him that after leaving the Sennett's residence, he and Smith drove to Williams' house where he collected $900 and that he had received $100 the day before to buy a handgun. There was also no showing that the Colbert County prosecutor had any knowledge related to White's release or of the delay of his release due to the protest filed by the Lauderdale County prosecutor. White's application for the SIR program was filed months before May learned of his connection with Parker, and was approved before White's interview or testimony. White testified that no one had promised him anything in exchange for his testimony, and May testified that no one had promised White a SIR release in exchange for his testimony. White's SIR supervisor also stated that no one in the Board of Corrections' chain of command, except possibly the Prison Commissioner or the prison's Director of Classification, could move a prisoner to SIR in exchange for his testimony in a case and that he knew of no one who had been so moved. Parker has not shown that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals unreasonably determined the facts regarding his Brady claim as to White's release when it held that the claim was “supported only by a coincidence of facts” or unreasonably applied Brady in holding that he failed to prove that the prosecution suppressed knowledge of a release agreement. Parker I, 587 So.2d at 1086-87.

D. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Parker argues that there were multiple deficiencies that resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel during the trial and sentencing. He explains that, although his attorneys recognized that they were not qualified or prepared to competently handle a capital trial, their motions for removal from the case were denied.

In order to present a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that (1) counsel's performance was deficient and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The defendant must make both showings in order to establish that the conviction or sentence was caused by “a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.” Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. The deficient performance inquiry focuses on “whether counsel's assistance was reasonable considering all of the circumstances,” and is judged under an “objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 687-88, 104 S.Ct. at 2064-65. The petitioner bears the heavy burden of proving that “no competent counsel would have taken the action” taken by his counsel. Callahan v. Campbell, 427 F.3d 897, 933 (11th Cir.2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Because of the difficulties inherent in making the evaluation [of reasonable assistance], a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance” and “the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action” could be considered trial strategy. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065. Although the Strickland presumption is demanding, it is not insurmountable. Chatom v. White, 858 F.2d 1479, 1485 (11th Cir.1988). It can be met when the deficient actions center on a single sufficiently egregious and prejudicial incident. *1279 Id. And it may be assessed against the seriousness of the charges filed against the defendant. Magill v. Dugger, 824 F.2d 879, 886 (11th Cir.1987). Additional, but cumulative, evidence which could have been presented does not, however, establish ineffective assistance. Van Poyck v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 290 F.3d 1318, 1324 n. 7 (11th Cir.2002) (per curiam).

1. Parker's Intoxication and Impairment at the Time of Statement

Parker maintains that his attorneys were ineffective because they failed to address his impairment at the time of his statement and failed to hire expert witnesses who could specifically address this impairment in testimony at the suppression hearing.

During the suppression hearing, Fountain testified that she had been with Parker the entire day of the arrest and that he had begun drinking beer and smoking marijuana early in the day. Fountain said that Parker drank at least “six to eight” beers and had smoked at least “[f]ive to six joints” of marijuana that day. Exh. Vol. 2 at 238-239, 248. She commented that he had also been “shooting up” Talwin, but she did not recall seeing him do so on the day of the arrest. Id. at 238-39, 248.

May testified that Parker asked to speak with him sometime after 5:45 in the afternoon on 31 March 1988. May met with Parker and, after advising Parker of his Miranda rights, Parker made his statement. May explained that he was trained to look for evidence of drug or alcohol use during interrogations but that he did not detect any signs of drug or alcohol impairment on Parker and that Parker appeared to understand what he was saying. May testified at trial that, after Parker began his initial statement, he asked Parker whether he was telling the truth and Parker changed his story.

Dr. James Edward Crowder, a local clinical psychologist, testified. Based on the evidence of Parker's alcohol and drug use at the time of his arrest, Crowder opined that Parker would “have had a reduction in his ability to withstand pressure [and] frustration and ... would have had to some extent an impairment in his judgment.” Exh. Vol. 2 at 259-60. On cross-examination, he conceded that an experienced drinker could develop a tolerance to alcohol that would permit him to function with a higher level of alcohol. Crowder explained that, if Parker's judgment was impaired by alcohol or drugs, he might be inclined to act in a manner “not in his best interest.” Id. at 262. He conceded that evidence of Parker's requests for visits with investigators in the days following his first interview might indicate that his judgment had not changed much between his first and subsequent visits.

During the post-conviction hearing, Dr. Peter Breggin testified as an expert in psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, and drug abuse, and Dr. Emanuel Hriso as an expert of neuropsychiatry and addiction. Based on the evidence of Parker's alcohol and drug use on the day of his arrestFN26, Breggin opined that by the time of his statement at 5:30 P.M., Parker would have been in a mixed state of alcohol and marijuana intoxication and alcohol withdrawal. He explained that Parker would have been suffering from anguish, desperation, discomfort, and pain as a result of alcohol withdrawal compounded by his inability to inject Talwin. Breggin stated that the combination of withdrawal, brain damage, *1280 and neuropsychological deficits would have altered Parker's judgment and made it more difficult for him to control his impulses. He explained that, “driven by a combination of intoxication[,] addiction withdrawal[,] and memory problems” “more than his will,” he may have understood the basic questions but would have felt “an extreme amount of urgency to say yes to anything that he thought would get him ... home.” Exh. PC Vol. 11 at 202-03. He noted that the sedative drugs that Parker was using, alcohol and marijuana, would have acted as a truth serum to “loosen his control over his own willful processes.” Id. at 203-06.

FN26. Although Breggin also explained that Parker was addicted to intravenous injections of Talwin and the problems associated with such, the trial judge reminded him that there was no evidence of Parker's use of Talwin on the day of his statement.

Hriso commented that Parker's alcohol and marijuana use could sedate and impair Parker's judgment so that he could not control his normal defenses and would not be unable “to make correct declarations.” Exh. PC Vol. 14 at 717-18. He also noted that Parker would have been vulnerable to Talwin withdrawal, to an impaired judgment, and to an inability to understand the exact meaning of words spoken to him. Hriso explained that, because erratic behavior was expected in such a state, it was understandable that Parker would have asked to speak to May and had confessed to the crime.

The determination of a confession's voluntariness requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances and ultimately requires an inquiry into whether the statement was “the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice.” Hubbard v. Haley, 317 F.3d 1245, 1252-53 (11th Cir.2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted). We consider a number of factors, and the presence of one alone is not determinative. Id. at 1253. A confession that was not the product of free will and rationale intellect or that was made when the individual's will was “overborne” by physical, psychological, or drug-induced means, is inadmissible. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 307, 83 S.Ct. 745, 754, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), overruled on other grounds by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 5, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1717, 118 L.Ed.2d 318 (1992). In determining whether or not a confession is constitutionally voluntary, the truth or lack thereof of the statement is irrelevant. See Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 544, 81 S.Ct. 735, 741, 5 L.Ed.2d 760 (1961).

In Alabama, although a confession will be deemed inadmissible if the defendant's mind was “substantially impaired” at the time of the confession, “[i]ntoxication, short of ... impairment of the will and mind as to make the individual unconscious of the meaning of his words, will not render a statement or confession inadmissible.” Free v. State, 495 So.2d 1147, 1156 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The voluntariness determination is a matter of law for the trial court, and that court's decision will not be reversed unless it is manifestly wrong or contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Id.

The state courts rejected this claim because there was not a reasonable probability that the outcome of the suppression hearing would have been different with the experts' testimony or that the exclusion of Parker's statement would have changed the jury determination of guilt. The state trial judge found that “[n]othing presented at the [post-conviction] hearing is of such nature that this Court would have ruled differently on [Parker's] suppression motion if this Court had been presented with this evidence at trial.” Exh. PC Vol. 3 at 527. The state appellate court held that Parker failed to show that he was prejudiced by his attorneys' failure to call expert witnesses at the suppression hearing and therefore failed to show that his attorneys were ineffective. The district court *1281 correctly held that this conclusion was objectively reasonable. None of Parker's post-conviction experts examined Parker on the day of his statement; their testimony was based on his medical history and their opinions that Parker would have been suffering withdrawal or impairment. May did not detect any signs of impairment when Parker made his statement, and Crowder indicated that Parker's subsequent contact with the officers might indicate that he was no more impaired than he had been during his first statement. Parker was cognizant of his situation when he began his statement, and drove himself, Fountain, and a law enforcement officer to the courthouse.FN27

FN27. Despite conflicting testimony regarding who drove the car to the courthouse, the trial court accepted the testimony that Parker was the driver. There was no clear and convincing evidence presented to rebut this.

The state court's factual determination that Parker exercised his free choice was not objectively unreasonable or disproved by clear and convincing evidence. The district court correctly held that the state court reasonably applied Strickland in finding no prejudice. Parker also failed to prove deficient performance. His trial attorneys did present evidence regarding the effects of his drug use at the suppression hearing. Any additional evidence would have been merely cumulative.

2. Experts Regarding the Murder and Weapon

Parker contends that his trial counsel failed to make proper use of the evidence which showed that Parker, who was in Florence at 11:30 A.M., could not have inflicted the fatal stab wounds, which were inflicted no earlier than 11:42 A.M. He maintains that Veasey's testimony during the post-conviction hearing regarding the time of the fatal attacks bolstered Parker's theory of the crime and was actually consistent with the testimony of prosecution witnesses at trial. Parker also maintains that his attorneys were ineffective for (1) failing to present available evidence that Charles Sennett killed his wife after Parker and Smith left the Sennett residence, and (2) failing to call a qualified expert to address the prosecution's allegations that Parker's survival knife was the murder weapon. He maintains that none of the experts who testified at the trial were qualified to meaningfully address the relationship between Dorlene's wounds and the size and shape of the knife.

At trial, all three doctors who testified regarding the pathology of Dorlene's death indicated that the fatal stab wounds appeared to have been inflicted within minutes of the law enforcement officials' arrival at the Sennetts' home at 12:09 P.M. It is uncontested that Parker was not at the residence at that time. Dr. Emily Ward, the forensic pathologist who performed Dorlene's autopsy, described the wounds as “rapidly fatal” because they would cause death in no more than five minutes from blood loss and the accumulation of air in the chest cavity. Exh. Vol. 6 at 1012-13. Dr. McKinley believed that the primary fatal wounds were made to Dorlene's chest within 30 minutes of the emergency medical team's detection of a pulse.FN28 Board certified forensic pathologist Dr. James Allen Barksdale opined that the wounds were inflicted “[w]ithin a very few minutes” of the emergency medical team's detection of a heartbeat.FN29 Exh. Vol. 8 at *1282 1537. May testified that his investigation confirmed that Parker was in Florence at 11:30 A.M. on the morning of the murder, and that it normally took about 30 minutes to drive from the Sennetts' home to Florence.

FN28. The emergency medical team arrived at the Sennetts' residence at 12:09 P.M. The team's report reflected a pulse rate “approximately 2 minutes or so after 12:09.” Exh. Vol. 6 at 1049.

FN29. During his questioning of Dr. Barksdale, Parker's attorney stated the evidence showed the time of the emergency medical team's detection as “approximately 12:15 P.M.” Exh. Vol. 8 at 1537.

During the trial, there was conflicting testimony presented as to whether Parker's survival knife was the murder weapon. Dr. McKinley did not believe that Parker's knife was the murder weapon. He did not, however, examine the length and widths of the stab wounds to determine whether or not the knife matched the wounds. Dr. Barksdale also reviewed the evidence and did not believe that Parker's knife was the murder weapon. He admitted that he did not participate in the autopsy and that it was hard to make a judgment based solely on the pictures unless the view was “straight on.” Exh. Vol. 8 at 1540-41, 1544-45.

Dr. Ward testified that the size and irregularity of Dorlene's stab wounds matched the irregular, jagged back-side of Parker's survival knife. She testified that Dorlene sustained defensive wounds and did not likely survive more than five minutes after being stabbed. Alabama forensic supervisor John Kilborn testified that Parker's knife contained “one colorless wool fiber at the hilt” that was “similar” to the fiber on the afghan found at the Sennetts' home. Exh. Vol. 7 at 1348.

At the post-conviction hearing, Parker presented the testimony of board certified forensic pathologist Dr. Sparks P. Veasey. Veasey explained that, in examining a stab wound, a pathologist measures the length of the wound across the skin and the approximate depth of penetration. He said that the approximation of the wound depth could be the same size as the knife that inflicted the wound or vary from shorter to longer based on tissue differences, lung deflation, abdominal and skin flexibility, abdominal or chest wall compression, and the amount of force used. He rejected for lack of medical certainty Ward's statements regarding the correlation between the wound and the knife and the “unusual” characteristics of the wound as necessarily being caused by a jagged or serrated edge. Exh. PC Vol. 14 at 809-12, 817, 819. Veasey noted that certain characteristics of the knife should have correlated with the wounds but did not. He pointed out that the knife admitted into evidence had a hilt or guard that separated the blade from the handle and that, if thrust forcefully into a victim, it would leave patterned abrasions or contusion injuries around the wound which were not found on Dorlene's wounds. Veasey also explained that the width, or distance between the sharp and dull sides, of the admitted knife was inconsistent with the width of the wounds. Veasey opined that Dorlene's wounds, which consisted of both blunt trauma and cutting injuries, occurred at two separate times: the earlier blunt trauma episode in which she attempted to defend herself and was thus “cognizant” of the attack, and the later cutting episode, which showed no evidence of defensive actions and occurred within thirty minutes of the emergency medical team arrival. Id. at 835-41. On cross-examination, Veasey admitted that he had trouble seeing “certain details” from the wound pictures and that Dr. Ward would have been in a better position to see the wound details. Id. at 846-47. He conceded that Parker's knife could have been the murder weapon.

The state court noted that Veasey's testimony would not have changed the outcome of the trial but would have supported the prosecution's theory of the crime, and went to the weight of the evidence the jury placed on Ward's testimony. The state appellate court held that Parker was not prejudiced because the additional expert witness's additional testimony was cumulative. Parker's attorneys presented witnesses during the trial who testified that Parker's knife was not the murder weapon. Because Veasley's testimony would have been cumulative, the district court correctly held that the state court reasonably applied Strickland.

3. Expert testimony regarding Parker's brain damage and alcohol use

Parker argues that his trial counsel failed to present evidence regarding the full extent and impact of Parker's drug addiction and brain damage. He maintains that the post-conviction testimony of Doctors Breggin, Hriso, and Marson established the availability of substantial mitigating evidence that was neither cumulative nor substantially similar to other evidence.

At sentencing, Parker presented three witnesses: Joan Parker (“Joan”), Parker's mother; Dr. James Crowder, the clinical psychologist; and Charlotte Dean, Parker's eighth grade teacher. Joan testified that Parker was a very active child and suffered a head injury that left him unconscious for about two days when he was two years old. While Parker was in kindergarten and first grade, he was observed intensely shaking and vomiting in response to any kind of pressure, and had a short attention span. Joan took him to a doctor who diagnosed Parker with hyperactivity, put Parker on Ritalin so that he could sit still and listen, and advised her to place Parker in a school atmosphere that would permit him to learn at his own speed. The Ritalin calmed Parker but Joan did not give Parker the prescribed dosage because it interfered with his ability to sleep. When Parker was about 10 to 12 years old, he was taken off Ritalin. About the same time, Parker fell behind his classmates scholastically and began to hang out with some older boys who supplied him with marijuana and alcohol. About six weeks after being removed from Ritalin, Parker began showing severe physical reactions. He did not adjust well to middle school and, despite Joan's pleas, was never placed into special education classes. When Parker was in middle school, he was placed in a six-week drug treatment program because of his parents' concerns about his marijuana and pill use. About four months after leaving the program, however, Parker slipped back into using drugs and alcohol. When Parker was 18, he returned to a drug treatment program. By 23 March 1988, however, Parker was using drugs intravenously. Joan explained that the only violent acts she observed from Parker were directed toward himself or inanimate objects.

Dr. Crowder saw Parker for evaluations in 1983 and in 1990 for emotional problems and treatment. He tested Parker using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for personality characteristics and mental illness diagnostics, the Wechsler Adult Intelligent scale, and a Wide Range [Academic] Achievement test to measure his scholastic achievements. The tests revealed that Parker had an intelligence quotient of 83, read and performed arithmetic at a seventh grade level, and felt that he was “not a very good person” and “inadequate when compared to other people.” Exh. Vol. 9 at 1739-41. Crowder explained that the intelligence and achievement tests indicated that Parker was not good at making decisions or judgments or retaining information for a long period of time, and was better at working with his hands than with words. Crowder noted that the personality inventory indicated that Parker felt “a great deal of guilt and remorse for his actions,” had “trouble controlling his impulses,” and was “anxious” and “restless.” Id. at 1741-42. Crowder said that he knew of no significant Ritalin withdrawal symptoms.

Dean testified that Parker was a quiet, easy going student, but that she never felt that she was able to reach, inspire, or motivate him. She said that he “chose to run around with the wrong kind of people,” became involved in drugs, and “seemed sad and melancholy most of the time.” Id. at 1756-57. She commented that he had not matured emotionally, intellectually, or socially after the 7th grade but was never a discipline problem or violent and was accepting of authority.

During the post-conviction hearing, Parker's attorneys, H. Thomas Heflin and Gene Hamby, testified. Heflin said that he attempted to explain Parker's drug problem to the jury through Crowder's testimony and by introducing Parker's past medical records. He said that he and Hamby had discussed using Crowder as the expert and that they had also unsuccessfully attempted to contact Dr. Nyland, a neuropsychiatrist or psychologist, who had treated Parker. Heflin did not recall any efforts to find a toxicologist or another psychiatrist, and used Crowder to discuss Parker's drug use because “he was the witness we had.” Exh. PC Vol. 10 at 46; PC Vol. 11 at 135-36. Heflin did not discuss Crowder's qualifications with him and did not know if Crowder had testified in other criminal proceedings. Hamby recognized that Parker's mental abilities were “limited” due to his drug problems and head injury but was unaware of what an expert could do to explain those problems to the jury. Exh. PC Vol. 13 at 528-59. Hamby explained that he called Crowder to testify because he was unable to find a psychiatrist who had treated Parker. Hamby did not remember considering hiring a toxicologist for the suppression hearing.

Clinical psychologist Glen David King testified for Alabama as an expert witness in clinical psychology and forensic examinations. After reviewing the trial record, including Parker's mental health records, King opined that Parker “well understood [and appreciated] the difference between right and wrong” at the time of the offense. Exh. PC Vol. 15 at 881-82, 886. He noted that Parker had evidenced his understanding of his actions by engaging in a series of goal-directed behaviors over a fairly lengthy period of time. He observed that Parker's actions included: (1) making a contract for pecuniary gain, (2) driving to the Sennetts' home, (3) committing the murder, and (4) attempting to cover the murder by making it appear as a robbery, all of which evidenced a “consciousness of guilt.” Id. at 888-89. He believed that the combined effect of Parker's intelligence quotient and mental impairments from long-term poly-substance abuse and intelligence quotient was outweighed by his goal-directed sequence-patterned behaviors in the crime. King commented that individuals who commit crimes as a result of ... serious mental illness or mental defect, usually commit crimes that are random in nature; they will often stay around the crime scene. It is fairly clear to people who observe them that they are operating under some delusion or hallucinatory compulsion, and none of these behaviors have been reported for Mr. Parker. ... When somebody commits a crime under mental illness or mental defect ... usually their behavior is random. It may not make sense to those who observe ... from the outside. There *1285 doesn't appear to be much of an obvious motive behind it. [T]hey often engage in these kinds of random[,] unusual or peculiar behaviors on regular basis. It's not something that occurs once and doesn't occur again, or it doesn't occur for months at a time. Id. at 889-90.

Parker's mitigation strategy was effective. The jury recommended a sentence of life without parole. The trial court, however, overrode the jury recommendation and sentenced Parker to death, finding that the aggravating circumstance of “[k]illing a human being, intentionally and deliberately, for money, evidence[d] a total and complete disregard for the value and uniqueness of human life” and outweighed the mitigating circumstances. Parker II, 610 So.2d at 1181. It considered the mitigating circumstances of Parker's age, remorse, lack of prior criminal history, and the jury's recommendation, but rejected the mitigating circumstance regarding Parker's drug use. Id. at 1179-81. It found that Parker's “capacity ... to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law” was not “substantially impaired.” Id. at 1180. Although it acknowledged Crowder's testimony regarding the impairments to Parker's judgment caused by his drug use, it recognized evidence of Parker's “actual actions during and after” Dorlene's murder which demonstrated the lack of his impairment. Id. It noted that evidence of Parker's appreciation for the criminality of his conduct and the possibility of his apprehension included his placing cotton socks over his hands before the murder, throwing away the weapon after the murder, making the scene look like a burglary, throwing away the stereo, and burning his clothes. It found that there was “no proof” that Parker's drug addiction was based on his childhood medication for hyperactivity and that Parker's childhood problems were “appropriately treated.” Id.

During the post-conviction proceedings, the state judge ruled that the expert testimony regarding Parker's drug addition and brain damage was “substantially similar” to the testimony offered at sentencing and that the other testimony of Parker's drug use and mental problems was “cumulative, repetitive and redundant.” Exh. PC Vol. 16, R-60 at 530-32. Based on King's post-conviction hearing testimony, which was consistent with Bryant and Nagi's expert trial testimony, the state judge was not convinced that Parker had any appreciable brain damage relevant to the murder. The state judge concluded that “even if all of the expert testimony had been presented at the sentencing hearing, [she] would have still imposed the death penalty.” Id. at 518; see also id. at 519 (“[Parker] would have received the death penalty even if the [post-conviction] testimony had been presented at sentencing.”). The state appellate court noted that Parker failed to show prejudice as a result of his attorneys' failure to call additional expert witnesses because the evidence was cumulative and the experts did not establish that he had a mental defect, disease, or intoxication severe enough to provide a defense for his actions or was incapable of discriminating between right and wrong.

To show prejudice, Parker must prove that there is a reasonable probability that the sentencing judge would have arrived at a different conclusion after being presented with the additional evidence and reweighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In Alabama, the trial judge is the ultimate sentencer in capital cases. Ala.Code § 13A-5-47 (1994). In this case, the sentencing judge was the same as the post-conviction judge and clearly stated that the sentence would not have been different even with additional testimony. The district court did not err in finding that the state courts reasonably applied Strickland in rejecting his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

E. Probable Cause for Parker's Arrest

Parker argues that there were no circumstances related to his detention on 31 March 1988 which justified his arrest without a warrant. He maintains that the actions and activities of the law enforcement officers at his residence and at the Sheriff's Office indicate that he was not free to leave and was under the custody and control of the Sheriff's Department. Alabama responds that, because the state court's decision regarding the use of Parker's statement was based on its application of New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 110 S.Ct. 1640, 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990), we need only address whether the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals unreasonably applied Harris in finding that Parker's statements were admissible.

1. Veracity of the Informant

Parker maintains that his attorneys should have established that much of the information provided by the female confidential informant was available to anyone acquainted with him. He claims that his attorneys should have addressed the inconsistencies between May's affidavit and his testimony regarding the basis for the informant's information.

In March 1988, May executed an affidavit in support of a warrant to search a residence where he believed he would to find the VCR stolen from the Sennetts' residence. In the affidavit, May related that an unidentified person (“the Source”) provided information that was not publicly available regarding Dorlene's murder, named the persons involved, and described a VCR stolen from the Sennetts' residence. May said that the Source claimed that “ ‘the preacher’ had paid Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) to have his wife killed.” Exh. Vol. 13 at 2423. May explained that some of the information was corroborated by another unidentified person and by investigators who confirmed the location and description of the identified residences of the named individuals. May recounted that the Source said that the provided information was based on “personal observation and overhear[d] conversations involving one or more of the individuals named.” Id. at 2428.

Parker's attorney moved to suppress Parker's statement, and argued that the police lacked probable cause for the arrest. At the suppression hearing, May testified that he obtained information regarding the crime from an anonymous informant on 28 March 1988. The informant provided: (1) the names of three individuals; (2) their roles in the murder; (3) their addresses and descriptions of their residences; (4) a description of their vehicles; and (5) the location as of 18 or 19 March 1988, and identifying information regarding the VCR stolen from the Sennett home. May testified that the informant had advised that she had personally seen the VCR at Smith's residence. May explained that the information was verified by other investigators who confirmed the locations and descriptions of the named individuals' residences, the connection between the three named individuals, and the information regarding their vehicles. The investigators verified that John Forrest Parker existed, that he had a criminal record, and that he lived at 2613 Huntsville Road, Apartment B, Florence, Alabama. They also verified the information regarding his car, his physical description, his girlfriend, and his relationship with the other named individuals. *1287 Although a search warrant was issued regarding the VCR, no arrest warrants were to be issued until it was executed. Law enforcement teams were dispatched to each suspect's residence and instructed to do nothing else until further notice. The information regarding the VCR was then verified.

During the post-conviction hearing, May explained the inconsistencies in his affidavit and testimony. May explained that the informant obtained her information by being a “friend of [Smith's] family” and confirmed that, in the search warrant affidavit, he had indicated that her information was based on her personal observations or the conversations involving the named individuals that she had overheard. Exh. PC Vol. 15 at 1031-34. Although he agreed that “reliability is ... important,” when asked why the basis of the informant's information was not shown anywhere in his notes, May responded that, “[a]t that ... time[,] what she was telling me about who was involved in the murder was more important to me than how she was getting the information.” Id. at 1033-35. May was questioned as to whether his affidavit was correct as to the amount of money paid for the murder, and responded that the information regarding the $15,000 was never corroborated or revealed by the investigation. May was also asked about his contact with a second anonymous informant. The second informant identified himself as “calling for a girl who knew all this but did not want to get involved” and corroborated some of the information provided by the Source. Id. at 1038. The second informant also identified Smith as a black male and said that he knew that the note found in Charles Sennett's pocket after his death read “I didn't kill my wife. I hired someone to.” Id. at 1038-39. May responded that the Smith involved in the case was white and that Sennett's note did not say that he had not killed his wife or hired someone else to kill her.

The information provided by the informant established her basis of knowledge, reliability, and veracity. She provided numerous details about the crime, the defendants' actions after the crime, and the property taken during the crime. Her information was corroborated by independent law enforcement investigations and her basis of knowledge was enhanced when the VCR was located where she indicated. Even though some of the information was publicly available, the informant's disclosure of it and law enforcement's confirmation of it supported the informant's credibility. Her credibility, however, was firmly established by her knowledge of the stolen VCR and the non-publicly disclosed details that connect Parker and his co-defendants to the crime. See Parker I, 587 So.2d at 1088; Williams v. State, 565 So.2d 1233, 1234-36 (Ala.Crim.App.1990).

Under a totality of the circumstances review, the informant was a credible source for information regarding the crime and provided the police with information that Parker was involved in the murder-for-hire scheme that led to Dorlene's death. They knew that the VCR stolen from the Sennetts' home was located in one of the named suspects' homes. Thus, they had sufficient probable cause to believe that one of the named suspects had committed the murder.

In Williams, the court found that “the details of the informant's tip as corroborated [were] sufficient both in number and specificity to establish [her] credibility.” 565 So.2d at 1236. It also found that the details indicating that she had either personally observed the facts or learned them from a crime participant supported an inference that she had an adequate basis of knowledge. Id. It noted that, although the publicly-available information was entitled*1288 to little weight, the VCR information was significant and “the cumulative effect of all information gathered” met the standard of probable cause. Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). On the issue of ineffective assistance, the state appellate court held that “in light of the fact that the informant described in ... detail the VCR stolen during the murder and accurately stated where it could be found, the additional information [that Parker argued his attorneys should have introduced] was not likely to affect the trial court's finding” and that, therefore, Parker failed to demonstrate prejudice. Exh. Vol. Tab 61 at 2.

Parker's arguments fail. The accuracy as to the amount of money paid for the murder did not enter into the probable cause determination which was based on the totality of the confidential informant's verified information. The fact of her personal observation of the information was proven when the VCR was found where the informant said that she had seen it. The district court correctly found that the state court's determination was a reasonable application of Strickland.

2. Lack of Probable Cause for Parker's Arrest

Parker maintains that his attorneys failed to: (1) question the prosecution's witnesses concerning the inaccuracies in the informant's statements or the affidavit executed in support of the search warrant; (2) provide for an adequate foundation for suppression of Parker's statement, and (3) adequately demonstrate that the law enforcement officers lacked probable cause for his arrest. He argues that evidence that the police approached his residence with their guns drawn and patted him down inside his home indicates that he was arrested inside his home. He contends that no intervening circumstances extinguished the taint of his illegal arrest and thus made his statement inadmissible. He asserts that his attorneys should have called Colbert County Sheriff's Office Investigator Doug Hargett who conceded that probable cause did not exist when Parker was taken into custody.

At the suppression hearing, Hargett testified that he and three other officers arrived at Parker's residence on 31 March 1988, observed the residence for 30 to 45 minutes, and were advised by May “to move in” after the VCR information was verified. Exh. Vol. 1 at 199-200; Exh. Vol. 2 at 214; Exh. PC Vol. 15 at 1059. They then knocked on the door and asked Parker to come out. As the officers approached the residence, they observed Parker looking out of a window and heard “what sounded [like] someone ... running through the apartment.” Exh. Vol. 2 at 213-14. Angela Fountain, who was in the residence, began screaming, and she and Tony Lakey were ordered out of the apartment. The police again ordered Parker out of the apartment and, after he stepped out, the officers patted him down and advised him of his rights. Fountain and Lakey both remembered seeing the officers' guns drawn as they approached. The officers then asked Parker and Fountain to go downtown to be questioned. Parker and Fountain, accompanied by an officer, drove to the Colbert County Sheriff's Department.FN30 At the Sheriff's Office, *1289 Parker was given MirandaFN31 warnings by Hargett and May before he made any statements. The warrant for Parker's arrest was issued the next day, 1 April 1988.

FN30. It is unclear exactly who drove the car. May testified that, to the best of his knowledge, Parker “voluntarily drove” himself to Colbert County and was accompanied by Fountain, Fountain's baby, and Lauderdale County Sheriff's Officer Charles Perkins. Exh. Vol. 1 at 192; Exh. Vol. 2 at 201-02. Fountain said that she drove their car and that she was accompanied by Parker and one of the law enforcement officers. Hargett testified that Parker and Fountain voluntarily agreed to return to Colbert County, and permitted Perkins accompany them.

FN31. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

During the post-conviction hearing, Hargett admitted that the officers had their guns drawn when they approached Parker's residence at 2613 Huntsville Road in Florence, Alabama to “follow up on information” that they had received from a confidential informant but stated that they did not plan to arrest Parker.FN32 Exh. PC Vol. 15 at 978-79, 983-84, 986, 992, 1007, 1059. As they approached the residence, Hargett said that they heard screams and saw Fountain in the doorway. Hargett explained that they then ordered Fountain and Lakey out of the residence. Hargett said that, once Parker appeared in the foyer, the officers asked him if they could speak with him and put away their weapons. Parker was patted down for weapons inside his living room and then ordered out of the residence. At the officers' request, Parker and Fountain agreed to accompany the officers to the Colbert County Sheriff's Office and to allow Lauderdale County Sheriff's Investigator Charles Perkins to ride with them. Hargett explained that Perkins rode with Parker and Fountain to prevent them from discussing the murder.

FN32. Alabama City Police Investigator Robert Wilhite corroborated Hargett's testimony that the officers had their guns drawn and explained that he was requested to assist the Colbert County officers when they went to “pick up” Parker. Exh. Vol. 13 at 578, 588.

Although Parker was not arrested until after he was interviewed at the Colbert County Sheriff's Office, Hargett opined that Parker was subjected to a warrantless arrest at his residence. May stated that he was told by the district attorney that Parker had been subjected to a warrantless arrest at his residence, and said that the arrest report also showed that Parker was arrested at his residence. Hargett was asked whether, after receiving confirmation from the other investigators about their search for the VCR, he had probable cause to arrest Parker. He responded that such information would “have given us more probable cause” but said he did not make a decision as to whether they would have had probable cause to arrest Parker at that time. Id. at 985.

Because of concerns for public safety and the expeditious apprehension of criminals charged with heinous crimes, law enforcement officers with reasonable cause to believe that an individual has engaged in a felony may arrest without a warrant. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 156-57, 45 S.Ct. 280, 286, 69 L.Ed.2d 543 (1925). Probable cause exists where the facts and totality of the circumstances, as collectively known to the law enforcement officers and based on reasonably trustworthy information, are “sufficient to cause a person of reasonably caution to believe an offense has been or is being committed.” United States v. Jimenez, 780 F.2d 975, 978 (11th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see United States v. Roy, 869 F.2d 1427, 1433 (11th Cir.1989). In determining probable cause based in part on confidential informant information, a court should consider not only the totality of the circumstances but also the “closely intertwined issues” of the informant's basis for knowledge, reliability, and veracity. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2328, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).

Under the Fourth Amendment, police are prohibited from making a warrantless arrest and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home to make a routine felony arrest. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 588-90, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1381, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). Such an arrest may be made, however, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed an offense and where exigent circumstances exist which make obtaining a warrant imprudent, see Payton, 445 U.S. at 589, 100 S.Ct. at 1381. Such exigent circumstances may include (1) the “violent nature of the offense with which the suspect is to be charged;” (2) “a reasonable belief that the suspect is armed;” (3) “probable cause to believe that suspect committed the crime;” (4) firm reasons to believe that the suspect is in the home; (5) a reasonable belief the delay could allow for the destruction of essential evidence; (6) a reasonable belief that delay could jeopardize the safety of the law enforcement officers or the public; and (7) a peaceful state of the entry. Bush v. State, 523 So.2d 538, 546 (Ala.Crim.App.1988).

Evidence, including verbal statements, obtained as a result of an unlawful search are subject to exclusion. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485, 83 S.Ct. 407, 416, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). Although its purpose is to prevent lawless conduct by law enforcement officials, the exclusionary rule is not to be “interpreted to proscribe the use of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.” Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 600, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2260, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (quotation marks and citation omitted). An inquiry as to the applicability of the exclusionary rule must address whether the evidence or “fruit of the poisonous tree” was obtained by the “exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable [from the illegal action] as to be purged of the primary taint.” Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488, 83 S.Ct. at 417 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Where, however, the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the prosecution's use of the defendant's statement made outside of his home, even if the statement was taken after an illegal arrest made in the home. Harris, 495 U.S. at 21, 110 S.Ct. at 1644-45.

In this case, the question is whether the information known to the law enforcement officers at the moment of Parker's courthouse confession was sufficient to establish probable cause for his arrest. Probable cause was based on corroborated information from a female confidential informant and not from verifiable false information from a male informant. Probable cause was based on both the detailed public information provided by the informant and the specific information regarding the VCR. Parker is unable to show prejudice or unreasonable performance by his counsel because the evidence of the male informant had no bearing on the court's admissibility of his statement. Parker is also unable to show prejudice or deficient performance as a result of Hargett's statement during the post-conviction hearing that Parker was subjected to a warrantless arrest at his residence. Hargett did not possess all of the information regarding probable cause, did not make the decision about probable cause, and did not ultimately make a determination about the admissibility of Parker's statement.

On direct appeal, the state appellate court noted that the facts supplying probable cause for Parker's arrest were “virtually identical” to those identified in Williams, 565 So.2d at 1236. Parker I, 587 So.2d at 1088. In addressing ineffective assistance of counsel, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that Parker had failed to demonstrate prejudice because his “claims concerning arrest at home and intervening events are irrelevant because the trial court found that the tip of an anonymous informant was sufficiently corroborated to supply probable cause for [Parker's] arrest.” Exh. PC Vol. 16, Tab 61 at 2. Further, at the time of Parker's statement, he was outside of his home and the police had probable cause for his arrest. His statement was, therefore, admissible. See Harris, 495 U.S. at 21, 110 S.Ct. at 1644-45. The district court correctly held that the state court reasonably applied Strickland's prejudice element because further evidence of an in-home arrest would not have affected the admissibility of Parker's statement.

Parker is also unable to prove deficient performance because this evidence was cumulative. The trial court heard Fountain and Lakey's testimony that Parker did not go out of his house when called by the officers and that the officers went into the house looking for him with their guns drawn and still admitted his statement.

Because the police had probable cause to arrest Parker when he made his statement, his statement was admissible regardless of whether or not he was arrested in his home. The district court correctly held that the state court's decision was neither contrary to nor involved an unreasonable application of law.

3. Questions Regarding Parker's Statement

Parker maintains that his attorneys failed to address either the temporal proximity between his first contact with the officers and his statement, or the effect of his intervening meeting with Fountain, who was very upset at that time. He also contends that his attorneys failed to address his impairment at the time of his statement.

Parker arrived at the Sheriff's Department at 3:35 P.M. “[A] few minutes” after his arrival, he was interviewed by Hargett and began making a statement at 4:38 P.M. Exh. Vol. 2 at 203, 205. The interview stopped at 5:30 P.M. and Hargett left the room. Parker was then permitted to visit with Fountain for about three minutes. She had been interviewed by law enforcement officers and advised that she needed to cooperate if she wanted to see her baby again. During her visit with Parker, she had the baby with her and told Parker that the officers had advised her to tell him that they believed that she and Parker were involved in a murder, and that Smith and Williams were “blaming everything on [Parker].” Id. at 236-37, 242-43. At 5:45 P.M., Parker was interviewed by May and, shortly thereafter, he made his second and inculpatory statement.

During the suppression hearing, the prosecutor referenced Fountain's meeting with Parker in his summation and Parker's attorney responded by citing Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 691-92, 102 S.Ct. 2664, 2667-68, 73 L.Ed.2d 314 (1982). Although this issue was not specifically addressed on direct appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals did state that it had “reviewed the testimony” from the suppression hearing and found no error in the trial judge's admission of his statement. Parker I, 587 So.2d at 1088.

The question of whether a defendant's statement, given after an illegal arrest and Miranda warnings, “is the product of a free will ... must be answered on the facts of each case. No single fact is dispositive.” Brown, 422 U.S. at 603, 95 S.Ct. at 2261. The relevant factors in making the threshold determination of voluntariness include the Miranda warnings, “[t]he temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances, and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” Id. at 603-04, 95 S.Ct. at 2261-62 (internal citation and footnote omitted). The prosecution bears the burden of showing admissibility. Id. at 604, 95 S.Ct. at 2262.

The temporal proximity factor is evaluated based on, inter alia, the length of time between the arrest and the confession and any intervening significant events. A statement made “several days” after an illegal arrest is too temporally distant to warrant admission. Id. at 605 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. at 2262 n. 11. Intervening significant events may include a lawful arraignment and the release from custody. See id. The admission of Miranda warnings alone; a short five to ten minute visitation with friends, one of whom was emotionally upset; or the issuance of an arrest warrant are not, individually or collectively, considered significant intervening events. See id. at 602, 95 S.Ct. at 2261 ( Miranda warnings alone); Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 691-92, 102 S.Ct. 2664, 2667-68, 73 L.Ed.2d 314 (1982) ( Miranda warnings, short visitation, arrest warrant).FN33 Absent intervening significant events, statements given within two hours to six hours of an arrest have been suppressed. See Brown, 422 U.S. at 604-05, 95 S.Ct. at 2262 (two hours with no intervening significant events); Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 203 n. 2, 218-19, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2252 n. 2, 2260, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979) (less than an hour and no intervening significant events); Taylor, 457 U.S. at 691, 102 S.Ct. at 2667 (six hours and defendant “was in police custody, unrepresented by counsel, ... questioned on several occasions, fingerprinted, and subjected to a lineup”). Exclusionary purpose and misconduct is demonstrated when the arrest was for “investigatory” reasons and was effected “to cause surprise, fright, and confusion.” Brown, 422 U.S. at 605, 95 S.Ct. at 2262 (“investigatory” arrest); Dunaway, 442 U.S. at 218-19, 99 S.Ct. at 2260 (“investigatory” arrest not cured by police's lack of threats, and abuse, or “protecti[on] of defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights”); Taylor 457 U.S. at 693, 102 S.Ct. at 2668-69 (“investigatory” arrest not cured by police's lack of physical abuse or defendant's “voluntary” confession).

FN33. In Taylor, the petitioner was permitted to have a short visit with his girlfriend and a friend, after he had signed a waiver-of-rights form and before he confessed. 457 U.S. at 691, 102 S.Ct. at 2667. The girlfriend was, however, “emotionally upset” after “hearing the officer advise the petitioner to cooperate.” Id. at 692 n. 1, 102 S.Ct. at 2668 n. 1. The Court noted that the visit was not only “[in]sufficient to break the connection between the illegal arrest and petitioner's confession” but may have had the “opposite effect” on the petitioner's ability to “consider carefully and objectively his options and to exercise his free will.” Id. at 691-92, 102 S.Ct. at 2667-68.

The state appellate court found that Parker's claims regarding his arrest at home and the intervening events between his arrest and his statement were “irrelevant” because probable cause was established by corroboration of the confidential informant's information. Exh. PC Vol. 16, Tab 61 at 2. It concluded that he failed to show prejudice arising out of his counsel's failure to challenge the temporal proximity or the impact of his meeting with Fountain and did not show that his attorney was ineffective. Id. The district court did not err in finding that state courts reasonably applied the law and that its determinations were not based on an unreasonable interpretation of the facts.

III. CONCLUSION

Parker filed this appeal seeking federal habeas relief from his conviction and death sentence for the murder of Dorlene Sennett. We hold that Parker received effective*1293 assistance of counsel because Parker is unable to show prejudice from his attorneys' representation during his motion to suppress, at trial, and at sentencing. The jurors who were stricken from Parker's trial were not similarly situated with those who were seated. The prosecutor's comments during his closing arguments, though improper, did not prejudice Parker and were cured by the trial court's extensive cautionary jury instructions. There was no evidence that the prosecution suppressed any evidence regarding their witness, and Parker was aware that the witness would testify before trial. Probable cause for Parker's arrest was established when the confidential informant's information was corroborated by law enforcement officials. Because Parker is not entitled to relief on any of his claims, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.