Golphin v. Branker

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

TILMON C. GOLPHIN, 
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
GERALD J. BRANKER, Warden,  No. 07-8
Central Prison, Raleigh, North
Carolina,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge.
(5:04-hc-00201-FL)

Argued: December 4, 2007

Decided: March 7, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and
MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Chief Judge Williams wrote the opin-
ion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Michael joined.

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Kenneth Justin Rose, CENTER FOR DEATH PENALTY
LITIGATION, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan Por-
ter Babb, Sr., Special Deputy Attorney General, NORTH CARO-
LINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
2 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
Appellee. ON BRIEF: Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY, JOHNSON,
BLACKMON, LEE & LAWSON, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Caro-
lina, for Appellant. Roy Cooper, Attorney General, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

OPINION

WILLIAMS, Chief Judge:

On September 23, 1997, at approximately 12:38 p.m., Deputy
Kelly Curtis of the Cumberland County, North Carolina, Sheriff’s
Department arrived at Exit 52 on Interstate 95 ("I-95") near Fayette-
ville, North Carolina to provide backup for a traffic stop. Once at the
scene, Deputy Curtis saw that Trooper Lloyd E. Lowry of the North
Carolina Highway Patrol and Deputy David Hathcock of the Cumber-
land County Sheriff’s Department had been shot, and he radioed his
dispatcher "Officers down. Officers down." State v. Golphin, 533
S.E.2d 168, 185 (N.C. 2000). A North Carolina jury convicted Tilmon
Charles Golphin Jr. ("Tilmon") and his younger brother Kevin Salva-
dor Golphin ("Kevin") of the murders of Trooper Lowry and Deputy
Hathcock. Tilmon brings this 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 2006) pro-
ceeding, raising two issues regarding his underlying convictions.
Because we conclude that the Supreme Court of North Carolina did
not unreasonably apply the clearly established federal law of Batson
v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and that any unreasonable applica-
tion of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Edwards v. Ari-
zona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), did not have a substantial and injurious
effect on the jury verdict, we affirm the district court’s denial of Til-
mon’s § 2254 petition.

I.

A.

In fall of 1997, Tilmon and Kevin, aged 19 and 17, were living
with their grandparents in Greeleyville, South Carolina, having left
their mother’s home in Richmond, Virginia. On the morning of Sep-
tember 23, 1997, Tilmon and Kevin caught a ride with their cousin
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 3
Demetric Mack into the downtown area of nearby Kingstree, South
Carolina. During the drive, Mack noticed that Kevin was concealing
a firearm that was later determined to be a Russian-made SKS semi-
automatic rifle in a white towel. Tilmon was not armed and was car-
rying a book bag.

Around 10:00 a.m., the brothers entered the offices of Financial
Lenders, a finance company located in downtown Kingstree. Kevin
entered brandishing the SKS rifle, pointed it at one of the employees,
Ava Rogers, and demanded her car keys. She gave him the keys, and
the brothers then ordered Rogers and a second employee into the
bathroom at the back of the store. Kevin followed the women into the
bathroom and told them to turn around and face the wall. Both
women reported hearing clicking sounds from the rifle while they
stared at the wall. After several minutes of silence, the women then
heard a vehicle leave the parking lot located behind the building; they
exited the bathroom and called 911. Rogers quickly discovered that
someone had removed her wallet from her purse, and that her car, a
1996 dark green Toyota Camry, was missing. The Kingstree Police
Department responded to the 911 call, and after obtaining a descrip-
tion of the suspects, issued a "BOLO"1 for the suspects and the vehi-
cle. The license plate and vehicle description were also entered in the
National Crime Information Center ("NCIC") database.

That day, Trooper Lowry was patrolling northbound I-95 in Cum-
berland County, North Carolina. At approximately 12:30 p.m.,
Trooper Lowry stopped a dark green Toyota Camry at Exit 52 on I-
95 because the driver was not wearing his seatbelt. Lowry approached
the driver’s side of the vehicle and instructed the driver, Kevin, to sit
in the front seat of his patrol car while he performed a routine vehicle
registration check. Although Kevin was driving the car, he gave
Trooper Lowry Tilmon’s South Carolina driver’s license. After
Trooper Lowry sent the registration check, the dispatcher responded
with a coded message that the vehicle was stolen. Trooper Lowry
requested assistance and told Kevin to exit the vehicle and place his
hands on the patrol car. Trooper Lowry then pointed his service
weapon at Tilmon, who was in the passenger seat of the Camry. By
this time, Deputy Hathcock had arrived at the scene and parked his
1
"BOLO" stands for "Be on the Lookout For."
4 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
patrol vehicle parallel to Trooper Lowry’s vehicle. Deputy Hathcock
then made his way to the passenger side of the Camry and removed
Tilmon from the car. Deputy Hathcock patted Tilmon down and
began walking him toward Trooper Lowry’s vehicle.

At the same time, Trooper Lowry unsuccessfully attempted to
place Kevin under arrest, but instead he and Kevin began struggling
with each other. Kevin and Trooper Lowry fell to the ground, scuf-
fling, and Trooper Lowry requested that Deputy Hathcock use his
pepper spray on Kevin in an effort to subdue him. Deputy Hathcock
was holding Tilmon by his left arm near the rear of the Camry at this
point. Deputy Hathcock complied, sprayed Kevin, and then attempted
to spray Tilmon. Before he could be sprayed, however, Tilmon
knocked the canister from Deputy Hathcock’s hand and ran back to
the Camry, where he removed the SKS rifle from the backseat and
then turned to face Deputy Hathcock. Tilmon looked Deputy Hath-
cock in the eye and fired the rifle, striking Hathcock several times in
the abdomen and chest.

Tilmon then moved to the back of the patrol car where Trooper
Lowry was on top of Kevin, still attempting to subdue him. Tilmon
moved alongside Trooper Lowry and fired the rifle into his side at
close range, causing Trooper Lowry to fall face-first to the ground.
Tilmon retrieved Deputy Hathcock’s service weapon and entered the
Camry on the driver’s side. Kevin, meanwhile, removed Trooper
Lowry’s service weapon, and while Trooper Lowry was still lying
face down in the grass, shot him multiple times in the back. After-
wards Kevin ran to the passenger side of the Camry, entered the car,
and sped away from the scene with Tilmon.

Several passing motorists witnessed these events, including Dana
Blecke, a former emergency medical technician who passed the scene
traveling southbound and saw someone lying in the grass in front of
a highway patrol vehicle. She also witnessed a black male running
toward the driver’s side of a car parked in front of the patrol vehicle.
Blecke slowed her vehicle, turned around in the median, and returned
to the patrol car. By this point, the other car she had noticed was
gone. Blecke stopped her vehicle and attended to the individual she
had seen lying in the grass, who was later identified as Deputy Hath-
cock, and assessed that he had no pulse. Deputy Curtis soon arrived
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 5
at the scene. At 12:39 p.m. Deputy Curtis radioed dispatch "Officers
Down. Officers Down," and requested immediate assistance.
Together Blecke and Deputy Curtis then attended to Trooper Lowry,
whom they found face down in front of his vehicle. They rolled
Trooper Lowry over to examine him, but unfortunately found no sign
of life.

Meanwhile, Tilmon and Kevin continued northbound on I-95.
Another motorist who had witnessed the roadside events, Ronald
Waters, had pulled off the road, called 911, and then pulled back onto
the road when he saw the dark green Camry drive past him. Waters
followed the Camry as he talked to the 911 operator, relaying the
vehicle’s movements. Several miles later, at Exit 55, the Camry
exited and Waters followed. Kevin and Tilmon drove down a small
dirt road where they switched drivers and removed the Camry’s South
Carolina license plate. Although Waters did not pursue them down
this road, he stopped on the on-ramp and monitored their progress
while continuing to speak with the 911 operator. The brothers then
drove the Camry to a bridge overlooking I-95 before turning around
and driving toward Waters. When Waters saw the barrel of a rifle
pointing out of the Camry, he dropped his phone, ducked down in his
seat, and hit the accelerator. He heard three shots, but he was unable
to flee the scene because the shots had disabled his vehicle. Waters
kept his head down until he heard an engine revving. Believing that
the Camry had left, Waters raised his head. He then saw the Camry
almost parallel with his vehicle, no more than six feet away, with Til-
mon pointing the rifle at him through the Camry’s passenger window.
Tilmon smiled at him and then pulled the trigger, but the rifle clicked
and did not fire. Tilmon stopped smiling, and the Camry sped away.
Waters was left physically unharmed.

After their encounter with Waters, Tilmon and Kevin reentered I-
95 at Exit 55 heading north. A high speed chase began at Exit 65,
where a highway patrol vehicle attempted to intercept the Camry. The
chase continued at speeds approaching 120 miles per hour until Exit
71, when Kevin attempted to exit, missed the turn, and rolled the car
over an embankment where it landed on its wheels. Tilmon and Kevin
ran from the vehicle into an adjacent wooded area. Officers from the
Harnett County Sheriff’s Department, the Cumberland County Sher-
iff’s Department, the Dunn Police Department, and the North Caro-
6 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
lina Highway Patrol immediately began searching the area. Both
Tilmon and Kevin were captured shortly thereafter. Deputy Hath-
cock’s weapon, a Glock 9-millimeter handgun, was found beside Til-
mon when he was arrested; Trooper Lowry’s weapon, a Beretta .40-
caliber handgun, was found under the steps of a home near where
Kevin was apprehended. It was in a cocked position, ready to fire, and
only five of the eleven cartridges remained in the weapon. In addition,
police recovered an SKS rifle from the wrecked Camry and Tilmon’s
driver’s license from the front seat of Trooper Lowry’s vehicle.

Autopsies were subsequently performed on both Trooper Lowry
and Deputy Hathcock. Trooper Lowry’s autopsy revealed that he was
shot at least seven or eight times, with the autopsy examiner conclud-
ing that several of the shots had been fired from close range. Three
.40-caliber bullets and one 7.62 millimeter bullet from the SKS rifle
were recovered from his body, and an additional bullet from the SKS
rifle was recovered from his body bag. The autopsy concluded that
Trooper Lowry suffered potentially fatal wounds from both the
Beretta handgun and the SKS rifle. Deputy Hathcock’s autopsy report
provided similar grisly findings, with the autopsy examiner conclud-
ing that Deputy Hathcock had been shot four times in the chest and
abdomen and once in the wrist. The autopsy reported that any of the
four wounds to his chest and abdomen would have been fatal; those
wounds were caused by bullets from both the Beretta handgun and the
SKS rifle. Trooper Lowry was survived by his wife and two daugh-
ters, Deputy Hathcock by his wife and three sons.

Following their arrest, Kevin and Tilmon were transported to the
Cumberland County Sheriff’s Department. Kevin waived his juvenile
rights and gave a statement to the police. Kevin admitted that he and
Tilmon stole the Camry in Kingstree, South Carolina, and that they
were traveling to Richmond, Virginia. As to the events on I-95, Kevin
provided the following information:

A state trooper pulled them over in North Carolina. The
trooper asked Kevin for his license, and Kevin gave him Til-
mon’s South Carolina license. The trooper told Kevin he
was stopped for not wearing a seat belt and asked him to get
out of the Camry and sit in the patrol vehicle. Kevin saw the
trooper typing on his computer and talking into his tele-
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 7
phone. Kevin heard the trooper ask for another car to come
and assist him.

Kevin stated that he saw a different kind of police car drive
up beside the trooper’s car and that a police officer wearing
a different uniform got out and came over to the trooper’s
car. The trooper got out of the car and told Kevin to "sit
tight." The trooper then came around to the passenger side
where Kevin was sitting, pulled out his pistol, opened the
door, and ordered Kevin out of the car. Kevin said that he
got out and put his hands on the hood of the car. The trooper
told the other police officer to "get the guy" in the Camry.
Kevin asked why he was being arrested and was told to
"shut up." The trooper pushed Kevin’s head down and put
him in an arm lock. Kevin stated that he resisted and tried
to get free. The trooper pushed Kevin to the ground. The
other officer brought Tilmon back toward the trooper’s car.
The trooper told the other officer to spray Kevin with pepper
spray. The other officer sprayed Kevin, and Kevin began
screaming and kicking at the other officer. At that point,
Kevin heard gunshots. His eyes began to clear, and he saw
the two police officers on the ground. The trooper tried to
grab Kevin, but he shook the trooper away. Kevin then took
the trooper’s pistol.

At first, Kevin did not admit shooting the trooper’s pistol
and claimed not to have shot any gun that day. After being
told that .40-caliber shell casings had been found at the
scene and that gunshot residue tests had been performed on
his hands, Kevin admitted firing the trooper’s handgun. He
said he did not know how many times he shot the gun, but
it was pointed at the trooper when he did so.

After he fired the gun, Kevin got into the passenger seat of
the Camry, and he and Tilmon drove north on I-95. He and
Tilmon left the interstate at the next exit and stopped on top
of a bridge where they switched places. Kevin continued
driving north on I-95, and they were chased by several
police cars. Kevin said that he tried to get away, but
8 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
wrecked the car when he attempted to exit the interstate. He
and Tilmon ran from the car, but both were caught.

Later in the interview, Kevin admitted that Tilmon had shot
at a Jeep that was following them on I-95 and that had
stopped at the same exit where they switched drivers. Kevin
said that Tilmon told him he was trying to shoot at the tires
of the vehicle. Kevin also admitted that Tilmon never shot
the trooper’s handgun and that Tilmon never had the troop-
er’s handgun in his possession.

Golphin, 533 S.E.2d at 187.

Tilmon was also taken into custody and interviewed by the police.
His time at the police station proceeded as follows:

Tilmon was interviewed at the sheriff’s department by Spe-
cial Agent Neil Godfrey of the SBI and Detective Mike
Casey of the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Department.
Agent Godfrey advised Tilmon of his rights, and Tilmon
asked to speak with an attorney. Tilmon was informed that
investigators could no longer talk with him because he had
requested an attorney, but they asked him several biographi-
cal questions. After he answered the questions, Tilmon
stated he wanted to tell the investigators what had happened.

Tilmon’s description of the events was very similar to
Kevin’s. When the Camry was pulled over by the state
trooper, the trooper told them he had pulled them over
because Kevin was not wearing his seat belt. Kevin and the
trooper went back to the trooper’s car while Tilmon waited
in the Camry. Eventually, he saw another police car pull up
beside them. He saw the other officer get out and walk
toward the trooper’s car. He then saw Kevin and the trooper
at the back of the trooper’s vehicle, and Kevin was pushed
up against the vehicle. Tilmon got out of the Camry and
walked back toward them. The other officer came toward
him, pushed him up against the Camry, and patted him
down. The officer then walked with him back toward the
trooper’s car where Kevin and the trooper were on the
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 9
ground struggling. Tilmon said he heard Kevin say that he
could not breathe. The trooper then told the other officer to
spray Kevin with pepper spray. The officer sprayed Kevin
and then turned to spray Tilmon. Tilmon knocked the canis-
ter from the officer’s hand and ran back toward the Camry.
He got the rifle from the backseat of the car. Tilmon said he
pointed the rifle directly at the other officer who was about
nine to twelve feet away; looked him right in the eyes; and
shot him. Tilmon said the other officer appeared to be dead.
He then walked over to where the trooper was on top of
Kevin, aimed at the trooper’s side, and shot him. Tilmon
said he aimed at the trooper’s side because he did not want
to kill him. Tilmon then ran over to the other officer, took
the handgun from his holster, and went to the driver’s side
of the Camry. He and Kevin drove north on I-95 for a few
miles, then exited and switched places. Tilmon stated he
shot at the tires of a vehicle that had been following them.
He and Kevin then continued driving north on I-95 and were
captured a short while later after they were chased by other
police cars.

Tilmon originally stated that he had not fired a gun that day
but later admitted that he "probably had" shot a gun but
could not remember doing so. Subsequently, Tilmon was
able to recount how the rifle "jumped" as he shot the
trooper. Tilmon also made no mention of the use of pepper
spray by either officer but later remembered that the trooper
told the other officer to spray Kevin. Additionally, Tilmon
said nothing about his encounter with Waters during the first
portion of his interview, but later described shooting at the
tires of the Jeep in detail.

Golphin, 533 S.E.2d at 187-89.

During their pretrial detention, police intercepted letters from both
Tilmon and Kevin containing incriminating statements. For instance,
prison authorities intercepted a letter sent from Tilmon to a former
juvenile boot camp associate in which Tilmon stated:

YO MAN YOU STILL CRAZY? I DON’T CARE WHAT
ANY BODY SAY I AIN’T CRAZY. THOSE F*CKING
10 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
PORK CHOPS DESERVE THAT SHIT. THE BEAST
(POLICE) TRY TO F*CK ME AND MY BROTHA UP.
SO I JUST DID WHAT I HAD TO DO. I AIN’T TRYING
TO GO OUT LIKE RODNEY KING. SO I SMOKED
THEM MOTHAF*CKAS. COP KILLA CK 1x8x7. . . .
MAN, I AM GLAD THA WORLD IS COMING TO AN
END. I WILL BE OUT BY THA YEAR 2000, SO F*CK
THIS WHITE-BOY COUNTRY. AMERICA IS ONLY
FOR WHITE PEOPLE, AND WHITE PEOPLE ONLY.

(J.A. at 690-91.)

Tilmon signed the letter "TILMON AKA RASILMON." (J.A. at
692.) Kevin also wrote a colorful letter in which he indicated he was
on trial "FOR THE MURDER OF TWO BEAST." (J.A. at 706.) The
letter is signed "JAH RASTAFARI." (J.A. at 707.)

The State introduced evidence, from prison inmate Shaquan Sneed,
who was housed near Tilmon, to explain the context of these letters.
According to Sneed’s testimony, Tilmon intended to kill Waters
because "they had to kill the witness." (J.A. at 712.) Tilmon referred
to his shooting of the police officers as firing at "Babylon." (J.A. at
713.) As Sneed further explained: "Caucasian[s] run America. So,
basically you’re speaking on the swine, you speaking on the white
man, you speaking on the Caucasian man, you speaking on Babylon,
you speaking on the USA, you speaking on the beast." (J.A. at 713.)
Sneed went on to testify that Tilmon was a Rastafarian,2 a "buffalo
soldier" or "fearless black man," (J.A. at 714), and that the year 2000
had significance for Rastifarians because, in Rastafarian belief, 2000
was the year of Armageddon in which the black man would rise up
and overthrow Caucasians as the rulers of America. Tilmon had told
Sneed, in reference to the deaths of Trooper Lowry and Deputy Hath-
cock, "That’s two less [Caucasians] we got to kill. Yo, that’s two less
Babylon we got to destroy." (J.A. at 718.)
2
Rastafarianism is "a religious movement among black Jamaicans that
teaches the eventual redemption of blacks and their return to Africa,
employs the ritualistic use of marijuana, forbids the cutting of hair, and
venerates Haile Selassie as a god." Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dic-
tionary 1031 (11th ed. 2004).
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 11
B.

On December 1, 1997, the State of North Carolina indicted Tilmon
and Kevin on two counts of first-degree murder,3 two counts of rob-
bery with a dangerous weapon, one count of assault with a deadly
weapon with intent to kill, one count of discharging a firearm into
occupied property, and one count of possession of a stolen vehicle.
Following the denial of a motion to sever, the brothers were tried
jointly in a capital proceeding in Cumberland County. Prior to trial,
Tilmon moved to suppress the statement that he made to the police
during his booking, which the trial court denied following a hearing
on February 23, 1998. Due to the amount of pretrial publicity gener-
ated by the case, the Golphins’ jury was drawn from a special venire
selected from nearby Johnston County.4

Tilmon authorized his attorneys to make several admissions during
the trial. During opening arguments, Tilmon authorized his attorneys
to admit that he fired shots from an SKS rifle that struck Deputy
Hathcock, Trooper Lowry, and the vehicle of Ronald Waters, and that
he was in possession of a stolen car. Tilmon further authorized his
attorneys to admit his guilt of second degree murder during closing
arguments. Following a jury trial, the brothers were found guilty on
all charges. Thereafter, on May 13, 1998 following a capital sentenc-
ing proceeding conducted pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2000
(2007), both were sentenced to death for each murder.5 In recom-
3
With respect to the charge of first-degree murder, the indictment
alleged that Tilmon and Kevin "unlawfully, willfully and feloniously did
of malice aforethought kill and murder" Trooper Lowry and Deputy
Hathcock. (J.A. at 7.)
4
Although there is a slight amount of confusion on this point, it
appears that Tilmon’s and Kevin’s attorneys stipulated to choosing the
jury from a county other than Cumberland County and that the trial judge
then chose Johnston County. According to the 1990 census, Johnston
County was composed of 80% white residents and 17.5% black resi-
dents. Cumberland County, where the murders occurred, was composed
of 60% white residents and 31.8% black residents. In any event, the trial
court’s use of a Johnston County jury is not an issue in this case.
5
Kevin was seventeen at the time of the events leading to his death
sentence, so his sentence was reduced to life imprisonment without the
12 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
mending the death sentence for Tilmon, the jury found four statutory
aggravating factors for each murder: that the capital felony (1) was
committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest;
(2) was committed while Tilmon was engaged in flight after commit-
ting robbery; (3) was committed against a law-enforcement officer
while engaged in the performance of his official duties; and (4) was
part of a course of conduct in which Tilmon engaged in other crimes
of violence against another person. In contrast, the jury found just one
of four statutory mitigating factors: Tilmon’s age at the time of the
crime. It found none of the thirty-seven non-statutory mitigating fac-
tors.

In addition to the two death sentences, the trial court sentenced Til-
mon and Kevin to the following consecutive terms of imprisonment:
(1) for possession of a stolen vehicle, a minimum of six months and
a maximum of eight months; (2) for assault with a deadly weapon
with intent to kill, a minimum of thirty-one months and a maximum
of forty-seven months; (3) for discharging a firearm into occupied
property, a minimum of thirty-one months and a maximum of forty-
seven months; and (4) for each count of robbery with a dangerous
weapon, a minimum of eighty months and a maximum of one hun-
dred and five months. Golphin, 533 S.E.2d at 183.

The brothers appealed directly to the Supreme Court of North Car-
olina which, in a thorough and lengthy published opinion, affirmed
their convictions and sentences. Golphin, 533 S.E.2d at 183-248. The
United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Golphin v. North Car-
olina, 532 U.S. 931 (2001). On January 31, 2002, Tilmon filed a
motion for appropriate relief ("MAR") in the North Carolina Superior
Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1415 (2007). The Superior
Court denied him relief in full on May 9, 2003. Tilmon then filed a

possibility of parole in the wake of Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551
(2005). In Roper, the Supreme Court held that it was cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to execute persons for
crimes committed before the age of eighteen. Id. at 578. Kevin has not
pursued habeas relief before the court at this time, and only Tilmon’s
claims are before us. Accordingly, any mention or discussion of Kevin
is limited to background information.
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 13
petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of North Caro-
lina, which was denied on July 9, 2003.

On May 24, 2004, Tilmon timely filed a petition for habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, raising twenty-five grounds of
error. On September 16, 2004, acting pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases, the district court dismissed two
claims because "it [wa]s plainly apparent from the face of the petition
that the petitioner [wa]s not entitled to relief on the grounds asserted."
(J.A. at 1108.) The district court ordered the State to respond to the
remaining twenty-three claims. The State filed its response and an
accompanying motion for summary judgment on November 15, 2004.

After denying Tilmon’s request for an evidentiary hearing, the dis-
trict court granted summary judgment in favor of the State and dis-
missed Tilmon’s § 2254 petition in full on March 13, 2007. The court
subsequently granted Tilmon’s motion to extend the time to file an
appeal, and Tilmon timely noted an appeal on June 1, 2007. On June
19, 2007, the district court granted Tilmon a certificate of appeala-
bility ("COA") as to seven of the claims raised in his § 2254 petition.
Before this court, Tilmon has limited his argument to two issues: (1)
whether the Supreme Court of North Carolina unreasonably applied
the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Batson; and (2) whether the
Supreme Court of North Carolina unreasonably applied the U.S.
Supreme Court’s decisions in Miranda and Edwards in upholding the
admission of his confession into evidence.

II.

We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny Tilmon’s
§ 2254 petition based on the record before the Supreme Court of
North Carolina, applying the same standards as did the district court.
Whittlesey v. Conroy, 301 F.3d 213, 216 (4th Cir. 2002). Pursuant to
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
("AEDPA"), the scope of our review in cases on collateral review
from a state court proceeding that adjudicated a claim on the merits
is both deferential and highly constrained. Under AEDPA, we may
grant Tilmon’s petition only if the state court decision was either con-
14 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
trary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal
law as determined by the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(1).

A state court decision is contrary to clearly established federal law
"if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by
[the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides
a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially
indistinguishable facts." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413
(2000). A state court adjudication is an unreasonable application of
clearly established federal law when the state court "identifies the cor-
rect governing legal rule from [the Supreme Court’s] cases but unrea-
sonably applies it to the facts of the particular . . . case," id. at 407,
or "applies a precedent in a context different from the one in which
the precedent was decided and one to which extension of the legal
principle of the precedent is not reasonable or fails to apply the princi-
ple of a precedent in a context where such failure is unreasonable,"
Robinson v. Polk, 438 F.3d 350, 355 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quota-
tion marks and citation omitted). The state court’s application of
clearly established federal law must be "objectively unreasonable,"
and "a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that
court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-
court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or
incorrectly." Williams, 529 U.S. at 410, 411. The phrase "clearly
established federal law" refers "to the holdings, as opposed to the
dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant
state-court decision." Id. at 412 (emphasis added).6

Also, pursuant to § 2254(e)(1):

In deciding whether a petitioner has demonstrated the defi-
ciency of the state court adjudication under § 2254(d), fed-
eral courts must presume state court findings of fact to be
correct unless the petitioner rebuts that presumption by clear
and convincing evidence.
6
Tilmon does not argue that the Supreme Court of North Carolina
acted contrary to clearly established federal law, and we therefore focus
solely on whether that Court unreasonably applied clearly established
federal law.
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 15
Buckner v. Polk 453 F.3d 195, 198 (4th Cir. 2006)

Although AEDPA deference is certainly a difficult standard to
overcome, "[t]he standard is demanding but not insatiable; . . .
‘[d]eference does not by definition preclude relief.’" Miller-El v.
Dretke ("Miller-El II"), 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005) (quoting Miller-El
v. Cockrell ("Miller-El I"), 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003)).

III.

Tilmon’s first claim before us is that the Supreme Court of North
Carolina unreasonably applied Batson in concluding that the prosecu-
tion’s peremptory challenges of two prospective African-American
jurors, Deardra Holder and John Murray, did not violate his equal
protection rights. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the use of peremptory
challenges for a racially discriminatory purpose. Batson, 476 U.S. at
86.

Batson created a three-step process for evaluating claims, like Til-
mon’s, that a peremptory challenge was used in a discriminatory man-
ner.

First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that
the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges on the
basis of race. Second, if the requisite showing has been
made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race-
neutral explanation for striking the jurors in question.
Finally, the trial court must determine whether the defendant
has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination.

Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 358-59 (1991).

As a matter of North Carolina state law, when the trial court does
not explicitly rule on whether the defendant made a prima facie case
under step one, and the State proceeds to the second prong of Batson
by articulating its explanation for the challenge, the question of
whether the defendant established a prima facie case becomes moot.
See State v. Williams, 471 S.E.2d 379, 386 (N.C. 1996).
16 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
As to the prosecutor’s burden under the second step, the Supreme
Court has explained that, "[u]nless a discriminatory intent is inherent
in the prosecutor’s explanation, the reason offered will be deemed
race neutral." Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360; see also Purkett v. Elem,
514 U.S. 765, 769 (1995) (holding that "[w]hat it means by a ‘legiti-
mate reason’ is not a reason that makes sense, but a reason that does
not deny equal protection").

Finally, at Batson’s third step,"[t]he trial court [has] the duty to
determine if the defendant has established purposeful discrimination."
Batson, 476 U.S. at 98. Because a "judge’s findings in the context
under consideration here largely will turn on evaluation of credibility,
a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great defer-
ence." Id. at 98 n.21; Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 364. Thus, a finding of
no discrimination is a factual finding that we review for clear error.
Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 364-65.

In Miller-El II, the Supreme Court clarified and reiterated that, at
this third-step, "a defendant may rely on all relevant circumstances
to raise an inference of purposeful discrimination." Miller-El II, 545
U.S. at 240 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). The
Court also clarified that, at this third step, a defendant does not have
to point to an identical juror of another race who was not peremptorily
challenged: "[n]one of our cases announces a rule that no comparison
is probative unless the situation of the individuals compared is identi-
cal in all respects, and there is no reason to accept one." Id. at 247
n.6; see also Coulter v. McCann, 484 F.3d 459 (7th Cir. 2007) ("In
Miller-El II, the Court clarified the way in which jurors of different
races should be compared. It called for direct comparisons between
‘similarly situated’ venirepersons of different races."). This approach
makes intuitive sense, for, as the Court explained, "potential jurors are
not products of a set of cookie cutters." Miller-El II, 545 U.S. at 247
n.6.

The Miller-El II Court also reiterated that reviewing courts cannot
create race-neutral explanations for the prosecution: "It is true that
peremptories are often the subjects of instinct, and it can sometimes
be hard to say what the reason is. But when illegitimate grounds like
race are in issue, a prosecutor simply has got to state his reasons as
best he can and stand or fall on the plausibility of the reasons he
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 17
gives." 545 U.S. at 252 (citation omitted). "If the stated reason does
not hold up, its pretextual significance does not fade because a trial
judge, or an appeals court, can imagine a reason that might not have
been shown up as false." Id. However, in reviewing the prosecutor’s
reasons, a court should consider "‘how reasonable, or how improba-
ble, the explanations are[ ] and . . . whether the proffered rationale has
some basis in accepted trial strategy.’" Id. at 247 (quoting Miller-El
I, 537 U.S. at 339).

With this framework in place, and ever mindful that AEDPA defer-
ence "does not . . . preclude relief," id. at 240, we turn to Tilmon’s
claims.

A. Deardra Holder

The State exercised a peremptory strike on Deardra Holder, a 22-
year-old African-American female, at a time when six jurors, includ-
ing one African-American, were seated on the jury and the State had
used nine peremptory challenges. Of those nine challenges, three
were made to strike African-Americans. During voir dire, the State
discovered that Holder had an 18 year-old sister who lived in the
same household and worked at the same business as she did. When
asked for her views regarding the death penalty, Holder responded,
after pausing for a moment, that "[i]f the death penalty was appropri-
ate, I would see nothing wrong with it." (J.A. at 409.) Most of Hold-
er’s answers were either "Yes, ma’am" or "No, ma’am." (J.A. at 401-
420.)

The State exercised a peremptory challenge against Holder for
three reasons: (1) she was 22 and had a sister who was 18 and lived
in the same household that she did; (2) she paused before discussing
the death penalty; and (3) when the prosecutor "attempted to draw her
out and to engage her in more than one-word answers or simply short-
phrased answers," she was unable or unwilling to do so. (J.A. at 422.)
The trial court granted the peremptory strike and denied the Batson
challenge because "the articulated reason that the juror was relatively
young and close to the age range of the defendants and that the juror
had a sibling at approximately the age range of the defendants consti-
tutes an articulable race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory
challenge." (J.A. at 427.)
18 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
In reviewing this claim, the Supreme Court of North Carolina con-
cluded that the State met its burden to offer a race-neutral reason for
the strike:

As to the second prong of Batson, the State provided race-
neutral reasons for the peremptory challenges of both
Holder and Murray. With regard to Holder, we perceive no
inherent discriminatory intent in the State’s explanation that
Holder was young, within the age range of defendants, and
had a sister who was also within the age range of defen-
dants. Defendants have failed to show the State’s reasoning
was pretextual. The State relied on previous questions by
defense counsel to formulate what it believed to be the
defense theory in this case and then proceeded to ask ques-
tions similar to those asked by defense counsel. There was
no evidence of pretext, as the State sought to exclude Holder
because she might be able to empathize with defendants
because she and her sister were within the same age range
as defendants. Therefore, the trial court did not err in con-
cluding that the State’s reasoning was race-neutral.

Golphin, 533 S.E.2d at 214 (citations omitted).

In contending that the State’s proffered race-neutral reasons were
actually pretextual, Tilmon directs our attention to two white jurors
the State did not strike, Dennis Grice and Dana Phillips, who Tilmon
contends were in the same age range as Deardra Holder and had sib-
lings in a similar age range. Grice was, according to his juror ques-
tionnaire, 23 years old and lived at home with a 13-year-old brother.
Phillips was 21 years old and had a 29-year-old sister. There is no evi-
dence in the record regarding their living arrangements at the time of
trial.

B. John Murray

John Murray was a 31-year-old African-American male. When the
State peremptorily challenged Murray, seven jurors were seated, one
of whom was an African-American. The State to that point had used
eleven challenges, four of which were used to strike African-
Americans.
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 19
During voir dire, the State’s questioning brought the following
facts to light: Murray was formerly with the Air Force and held top
secret security clearance; he had overheard two white jurors in the
courtroom stating "[t]he defendants should have never made it out of
the woods [alive]," (J.A. at 443); he believed those jurors "weren’t
giving much consideration to due process," (J.A. at 443); hearing such
statements would not in any way prejudice him against the State; he
was "an advocate of both punishments," that is, life imprisonment and
the death penalty, because "they are deterrents" and "they do work,"
(J.A. at 455); his father was convicted of robbery when he was a child
and spent four to six years in jail; he was convicted of a DUI several
years prior to the trial; and that he was familiar with reggae music but
not familiar with Rastafarianism as a religion. Murray also had an
aunt who served as a Deputy Sheriff in Buncombe County, North
Carolina.

Following voir dire, the State moved to strike Murray. Tilmon’s
counsel raised a Batson objection, noting that, to that point, almost
one-third of the State’s challenges had been made to strike African-
American jurors. The State responded that it struck Murray for the
"cumulative effect of three things." (J.A. at 474.)

One, he has a prior conviction himself for driving while
impaired. Two, his father has a prior conviction for robbery
for which he served, if I remember correctly, six years in the
Department of Corrections. And three, Mr. Murray’s state-
ment that he attributed to a male and a female white juror
in the courtroom with respect to what he viewed as a chal-
lenge to the due process rights of the defendants. The cumu-
lative effect of that we contend makes him challengeable by
the state from our point of view peremptorily.

(J.A. at 474.)

The State then added the following bits of information: that Murray
"did not refer to the Court with any deferential statement"; that, in
relation to his "demeanor," Murray "had a gold earring in his left ear";
and, that the prosecutor "noted and perceived from [his] point of view
a rather militant animus with respect to some of his answers." (J.A.
at 475.) Explaining this last point, the prosecutor continued, "He elab-
20 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
orated on some things. Other things, he gave very short, what I
viewed as sharp answers and also noted that, when he spoke to the
Court, . . . [he] [d]id not address the Court as Your Honor. He just
simply gave rather short, cryptic answers." (J.A. at 475.)

Defense counsel countered that a white male in the same age range
as Murray, Michael Covington, had a past conviction but was not
challenged and that another white juror, Virginia Broderick, had a
DWI conviction. Moreover, counsel noted the State did not question
Murray about his father’s conviction and what impact that would have
upon him as a juror and argued that the comments of the white jurors
could not reflect upon Murray’s fitness to serve.

The trial court denied the Batson motion. It explained as follows:

I would just like to note for the record that I did not
perceive—since this has been raised, I did not perceive any
conduct of the juror to be less than deferential to the Court.
I think that the juror did demonstrate a consistent reticence
to elaborate on questions, but all of his responses were
appropriate to the specific questions asked. And probably
that—there was a substantial degree of clarity and thought-
fulness in the juror’s responses.

And the Court will note for the record that it is primarily
relying upon the [juror’s] prior record, specifically which it
involved an interaction with a traffic law enforcement offi-
cer, and the potential empathy that might be engendered
from a father who was a criminal defendant as the basis for
the exercise of the peremptory challenge.

I would note further I am not relying upon the impact of
the incident in the courtroom as providing a basis for this
and frankly is not—I do not consider it to be appropriate for
even the exercise [of] a peremptory challenge.

(J.A. at 477-78.)

The Supreme Court of North Carolina found that this offering from
the State constituted a race-neutral reason:
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 21
With regard to Murray, we perceive no inherent discrimina-
tory intent in the State’s explanation that Murray had been
convicted of driving while impaired and that his father had
a prior conviction for robbery for which he had served six
years in the Department of Correction. Defendants did not
show the State’s explanation to be pretextual. While defen-
dants pointed to two other Caucasian prospective jurors who
had criminal convictions and were accepted by the State,
those other prospective jurors did not also have a parent who
was convicted of robbery for which he or she was incarcer-
ated. There is no evidence of pretext, as the State sought to
exclude Murray because he might empathize with defen-
dants because of his own experience with traffic law
enforcement and his father’s incarceration in the Depart-
ment of Correction. Therefore, the trial court did not err in
finding the State’s reasoning to be race-neutral.

Golphin, 533 S.E.2d at 214 (citations omitted).

To support his argument that the peremptory strike of Murray was
pretextual, Tilmon points out that the State did not strike at least six
white jurors with criminal records or relatives with criminal records.
In particular, Tilmon directs our attention to Virginia Broderick, a
white female who was passed by the State and whose sister and
brother-in-law were drug addicts who had recently been arrested for
passing bad checks. Broderick had custody of their 15-year-old
daughter. When asked about her sister and brother-in-law, however,
Broderick stated that "[w]e don’t have any contact with them." (J.A.
at 358.) Broderick had also been convicted of driving while under the
influence of alcohol, for which her driver’s license was suspended for
one year. Broderick stated that her own conviction, which had
occurred about four years earlier, would not impact her ability to
serve as a juror. She had, in fact, served as a juror in a civil case in
1996.

Tilmon additionally supports his argument that the strikes of
Holder and Murray were pretextual by noting that the State ques-
tioned two African-American jurors, Murray and Phillip Barnhill,
about Rastafarianism but did not question white jurors on that topic.
22 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
Tilmon also points us to the statistical evidence regarding the jury’s
composition. The 95-person venire panel included thirteen African-
Americans. Of the thirteen prospective African-American jurors, six
were excused for cause, five were peremptorily struck by the State,
one was struck by Kevin’s counsel, and one served on the jury. Thus,
the State struck 5 of the 7 eligible black jurors, or 71%.7 In total, the
State struck 14 of 31 eligible white jurors, or 45%.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina offered the following analy-
sis in ultimately rejecting Tilmon’s Batson claim:

As the State provided race-neutral reasons for its peremp-
tory challenges of Holder and Murray, we move to the third
prong of Batson. In light of the factors we consider in evalu-
ating whether there is purposeful discrimination, we note
that this case may be one susceptible to racial discrimination
because defendants are African-Americans and the victims
were Caucasian. See White, 349 N.C. at 548-49, 508 S.E.2d
at 262. However, the State did not exhaust the statutory
number of peremptory challenges allowed for the first
twelve jurors, nor did it exhaust its challenges in selecting
the four alternate jurors. See N.C.G.S. § 15A-1217; White,
349 N.C. at 548-49, 508 S.E.2d at 262. In addition, based
on the discussion which occurred at the time the State chal-
lenged Holder, the State had exercised nine peremptory
challenges, only three of which were against African-
Americans; the next day, when Murray was challenged, the
State had exercised eleven peremptory challenges, only four
of which were against African-Americans, one being
Holder. The State had accepted six prospective jurors, one
of whom was African-American. This constituted a higher
percentage of African-Americans accepted by the State than
were in the jury pool. In selecting the twelve jurors and four
alternates, the State exercised twenty-seven peremptory
challenges, only four of which were against African-
7
On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of North Carolina concluded that
the State used its peremptory challenges on 4 of the 7 eligible black
jurors, or 57%. Before this court, the State agrees that the correct number
is 5 of 7.
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 23
Americans. This ratio represents a percentage of African-
Americans equivalent to the percentage of African-
Americans in the jury pool. Moreover, during jury selection,
the State made no comments which would support an infer-
ence of discrimination in the instant case.

From our review of the transcript in the instant case, it is
apparent the trial court gave great consideration to the argu-
ments by all parties with regard to these two Batson chal-
lenges before concluding the State did not purposefully
discriminate against Holder or Murray. We give great defer-
ence to the trial court’s rulings. See Bonnett, 348 N.C. at
433, 502 S.E.2d at 575. Given the foregoing, we are con-
vinced the State did not discriminate on the basis of race in
exercising its peremptory challenges against Holder and
Murray. See Kandies, 342 N.C. at 434-35, 467 S.E.2d at 75.
Defendants’ assignments of error are overruled.

Golphin, 533 S.E.2d at 214-15.

C.

Based on the record before us, we conclude that the Supreme Court
of North Carolina reasonably applied Batson in concluding that the
jury selection did not violate Tilmon’s equal protection rights. A sig-
nificant portion of Tilmon’s argument is grounded in the Court’s
recent decision in Miller-El II, and, before we turn specifically to Til-
mon’s claim, we believe a detailed exploration of Miller-El II is help-
ful in deciding this case.8
8
We find a detailed exploration of Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231
(2005) ("Miller-El II"), particularly instructive given that the Supreme
Court has vacated and remanded two of our prior decisions, Kandies v.
Polk, 385 F.3d 457 (4th Cir. 2004), vacated, Kandies v. Polk, 545 U.S.
1137 (2005), and United States v. Barnette, 390 F.3d 775 (4th Cir. 2004),
vacated, Barnette v. United States, 546 U.S. 803 (2005), for further con-
sideration in light of Miller-El II. The present case represents our first
opportunity to explore the import of Miller-El II to our Batson jurispru-
dence.
24 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
Miller-El II involved a defendant who had been convicted of capi-
tal murder in a Texas state court prior to the Supreme Court’s deci-
sion in Batson. Miller-El II, 545 U.S. at 236. After Batson was
decided, the district court and the Fifth Circuit denied Miller-El’s
request for a COA on the issue of whether his jury selection violated
Batson, which the Supreme Court reversed. Miller-El I, 537 U.S. at
348. The Fifth Circuit then denied relief on the merits, and, again, the
Supreme Court reversed. Miller-El II, 545 U.S. at 266. In granting
habeas relief, the Supreme Court focused on the following factors.
First, "[t]he numbers describing the prosecution’s use of peremptories
[were] remarkable." Miller-El II, 545 U.S. at 240. Indeed, "[t]he pros-
ecutors used their peremptory strikes to exclude 91% [10 of 11] of the
eligible African-American venire members. . . . Happenstance is
unlikely to produce this disparity." Miller-El I, 537 U.S. at 342. In
addition, "side-by-side comparisons of black panelists who were
struck and white panelists allowed to serve" pointed to discrimination
because "[i]f a prosecutor’s proffered reason for striking a black pan-
elist applies just as well to an otherwise-similar nonblack who is per-
mitted to serve, that is evidence tending to prove purposeful
discrimination." Miller-El II, 545 U.S. at 241. Thus, although the
prosecution had offered a race-neutral explanation for striking some
jurors, its "plausibility [was] severely undercut by the prosecution’s
failure to object to other panel members who expressed views much
like [the challenged black jurors’]." Id. at 248. Specifically, the prose-
cutors struck two black jurors for hesitancy about imposing the death
penalty even though their statements indicated no such hesitancy and
the prosecutor’s new explanation after being told that he had mis-
quoted one juror "reek[ed] of afterthought." Id. at 246. In fact, the
Court concluded that at least one black juror whom the prosecution
struck would have been an ideal juror given his views in favor of the
death penalty. Id. at 247.

Finally, and most importantly, the Court relied heavily on "broader
patterns of practice during the jury selection." Id. at 253. The prosecu-
tion had used the technique of a "jury shuffle" to move black venire-
persons to the back of the venire panel; read a "graphic script" of the
death penalty to black venire members in order to get them to equivo-
cate on the death penalty;9 and used "trickery" in the form of ques-
9
The Court included the following example of the graphic script:
I feel like you have a right to know right up front what our posi-
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 25
tions about mandatory minimum sentencing for first degree murder.10
Id. at 253-63. The Court found that 53% of black jurors received the
graphic script, while only 6% of white jurors received it. Id. at 255-
56. As for the trickery, 27% of nonblacks who indicated skepticism
about the death penalty received the "trick" question, while 100% of
black jurors hesitant about the death penalty were asked the trick
question. Id. at 264. Importantly, the State never "denied that dispa-
rate lines of questioning were pursued." Id. at 265. The Court then
arrived at its final piece of evidence:

There is a final body of evidence that confirms this conclu-
sion. We know that for decades leading up to the time this
case was tried prosecutors in the Dallas County office had
followed a specific policy of systemically excluding blacks
from juries.

Id. at 263.

The Court thus concluded that Miller-El’s evidence, when "viewed

tion is. Mr. Kinne, Mr. Macaluso and myself, representing the
people of Dallas County and the state of Texas, are actively
seeking the death penalty for Thomas Joe Miller-El. . . .
We do that with the anticipation that, when the death penalty is
assessed, at some point Mr. Thomas Joe Miller-El-the man sit-
ting right down there-will be taken to Huntsville and will be put
on death row and at some point taken to the death house and
placed on a gurney and injected with a lethal substance until he
is dead as a result of the proceedings that we have in this court
on this case. So that’s basically our position going into this thing.
Miller-El II, 545 U.S. at 256 (internal quotation marks omitted).
10
The trick question worked in the following manner. The prosecution
would ask a juror what he/she believed should be the mandatory mini-
mum sentence for murder. It first told some jurors that Texas law pro-
vided a minimum of five years. For other jurors, the prosecution would
not mention the five-year minimum. If a juror then offered a term above
five years, the prosecution would move to strike that juror for cause.
Miller-El II, 545 U.S. at 261. The State conceded that this tactic was
used to trick jurors and create cause to strike. Id.
26 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
cumulatively," was "too powerful to conclude anything but discrimi-
nation." Id. at 265. The Court explained that, in summary:

It blinks reality to deny that the State struck Fields and War-
ren, included in that 91%, because they were black. The
strikes correlate with no fact as well as they correlate with
race, and they occurred during a selection infected by shuf-
fling and disparate questioning that race explains better than
any race-neutral reason advanced by the State. The State’s
pretextual positions confirm Miller-El’s claim, and the pros-
ecutors’ own notes proclaim that the Sparling Manual’s
emphasis on race was on their minds when they considered
every potential juror.

The state court’s conclusion that the prosecutors’ strikes of
Fields and Warren were not racially determined is shown up
as wrong to a clear and convincing degree; the state court’s
conclusion was unreasonable as well as erroneous.

Id. at 266.

D.

Contrary to Tilmon’s belief, Miller-El II did not alter Batson
claims in any way. Miller-El II itself was a case under AEDPA, so
the Court, simply following clearly established federal law as AEDPA
requires, could not have crafted a new legal standard. Moreover, sub-
sequent to Miller-El II, the Court has retained and continued to apply
Batson’s three-step process. See Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338-39
(2006) (applying three-step Batson framework to claim of racial dis-
crimination during jury selection).

Indeed, in the wake of Miller-El II, courts (including the Fifth Cir-
cuit, whose decision Miller-El II reversed) continue to deny Batson
claims pursuant to AEDPA. See, e.g., Nicklasson v. Roper, 491 F.3d
830, 842 (8th Cir. 2007) (finding no Batson violation when only evi-
dence was side-by-side comparisons and explaining that "Nicklas-
son’s reliance on Miller-El does not bolster his argument because the
Supreme Court’s finding of a Batson violation did not hinge entirely
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 27
on the closeness of the excluded black juror’s testimony to that of the
white, but on the ‘totality of the relevant facts’ pertaining to the pros-
ecutor’s conduct during the defendant’s trial"); Lewis v. Calderon,
189 F. App’x 658 (9th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (denying Batson
claim when prosecution struck 6 of 7 eligible black jurors, or 86%);
Murphy v. Dretke, 416 F.3d 427, 439 (5th Cir. 2005) (denying Batson
claim less than one month after Miller-El II and explaining that "[t]he
Court did not announce any new elements or criteria for determining
a Batson claim, but rather simply made a final factual and evidentiary
determination of that particular petitioner’s Batson claim").

In deciding Tilmon’s claim, we start by noting that Tilmon does
not argue that the State failed to offer legitimate race-neutral reasons
for striking Holder and Murray. Rather, Tilmon argues that the com-
parison between Holder and Murray with other white jurors the State
did not strike and the State’s overall conduct during jury selection
show those race-neutral reasons were pretextual. Thus, we limit our
review to whether the Supreme Court of North Carolina unreasonably
applied the third-step of Batson in denying Tilmon relief.

Unlike Miller-El II, a side-by-side juror comparison does not tend
to show pretext in this case. Holder and her sister were in the same
age range as Tilmon and Kevin, who were 19 years old and 17 years
old, respectively; no other juror was similarly situated. Grice was ten
years older than his brother, and Phillips was eight years younger than
her sister. More importantly, neither juror’s siblings were in the same
age range as Tilmon and Kevin. Miller-El I counsels that we look to
whether the prosecution’s purported reason has some basis in "accept-
able trial strategy." Miller-El I, 537 U.S. at 339. The choice to chal-
lenge Holder, given her age and her closeness to her sister, certainly
meets this criterion. The State asked at least three other jurors under
the age of twenty-four if they had any siblings, another indication that
the State was preparing for a possible defense strategy focused upon
the close bond between Tilmon and Kevin.

Likewise, the State reasonably viewed Murray and Broderick in
separate lights: although each had a close relative who had been
incarcerated, the potential effect on Murray of growing up without a
father because he was in the criminal justice system is bound to be
different than the effect on Broderick of having a ne’er-do-well sister
28 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
and brother-in-law. The State reasonably could have believed that
having a father who was removed from the home by the criminal jus-
tice system might leave Murray with a negative view of that system.

Finally, Tilmon’s additional evidence—that the State struck 71%
of eligible black jurors and asked only black jurors about
Rastafarianism—is insufficient to show that the Supreme Court of
North Carolina unreasonably applied Batson’s third step, even in light
of Miller-El II. Although Tilmon’s statistical evidence is certainly
probative under Miller-El II, see 545 U.S. at 240-41, it alone cannot
carry the day. See Coulter, 484 F.3d at 468 (denying habeas relief
under Batson and Miller-El II where prosecution used 90% of its
strikes against African-American jurors); United States v. Nelson, 450
F.3d 1201, 1209 (10th Cir. 2006) (noting that "the prosecutor’s use
of peremptory strikes directed at other African American venire-
members is a relevant factor" but concluding "[i]t does not follow . . .
that the district court was required to rule the same way with respect
to each of the peremptory strikes"); Majid v. Portuondo, 428 F.3d
112, 131 (2d Cir. 2005) (rejecting Batson claim post Miller-El II
where prosecution struck twelve of fifteen eligible black jurors and
noting "the Miller-El decisions do not help the petitioners"). As the
Seventh Circuit noted in Coulter, even if "it is possible that we may
not have been as convinced by the record as the state trial court was
in 1998, . . . that is not our role." 484 F.3d at 470.

Moreover, the questions about Rastafarianism are not indicative of
pretext. The State planned to introduce evidence that Tilmon was
Rastafarian, and questions about whether a juror was affiliated with
this religion could have revealed a potential affinity for Tilmon.
Because Rastafarianism is a religion that welcomes only individuals
of African descent, it is reasonable that the State would only ask
potential jurors who were African-American about any affiliation
with this religion. Thus, a discriminatory motive cannot be imputed
to the State merely because it asked questions of only those people
that potentially could be Rastafarian.

Finally, we would be remiss if we failed to note that this case is
not one in which the trial judge remained uninvolved. Instead, the
record reveals a trial judge acutely aware of the potential for racial
bias during jury selection. For instance, the trial judge required the
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 29
State to give its race-neutral reasons for peremptory challenges begin-
ning with the first Batson challenge (to Holder). After another Batson
challenge was raised in relation to Murray, the trial judge ruled, "I am
now going to hereafter, including this time, require an articulable rea-
son for each minority peremptorily excused if a Batson challenge is
raised." (J.A. at 474.) As to both Holder and Murray, the trial judge
accepted some of the State’s race-neutral reasons, but rejected others.
See also Golphin, 533 S.E.2d at 215 (noting that "it is apparent the
trial court gave great consideration to the arguments by all parties
with regard to these two Batson challenges before concluding the
State did not purposefully discriminate against Holder or Murray").
In addition, the Supreme Court of North Carolina recognized that this
case was one in which racial discrimination during jury selection was
particularly possible: "we note that this case may be one susceptible
to racial discrimination because defendants are African-Americans
and the victims were Caucasian." Golphin, 533 S.E.2d at 214. Beyond
their legal analysis, the care with which these courts considered Til-
mon’s Batson challenge further underscores our conclusion that we
cannot grant Tilmon relief on this claim.

IV.

A.

Tilmon’s second claim is that the Supreme Court of North Carolina
unreasonably applied the line of cases beginning with Miranda v. Ari-
zona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), in permitting the admission of his confes-
sion at trial. In Miranda, the Supreme Court held that the police must
advise a suspect of his right to counsel and, "[i]f the individual states
that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attor-
ney is present." 384 U.S. at 474. Over fifteen years later, in Edwards
v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), the Court explained that "it is incon-
sistent with Miranda and its progeny for authorities, at their instance,
to reinterrogate an accused in custody if he has clearly asserted his
right to counsel." Id. at 485. Thus, when a suspect "expresse[s] his
desire to deal with the police only through counsel," the police cannot
interrogate him "until counsel has been made available to him, unless
the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or
conversations with the police." Id. at 484-85. And,
30 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
[i]f the police do subsequently initiate an encounter in the
absence of counsel (assuming there has been no break in
custody), the suspect’s statements are presumed involuntary
and therefore inadmissible as substantive evidence at trial,
even where the suspect executes a waiver and his statements
would be considered voluntary under traditional standards.

McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 177 (1991).

The purpose of the Edwards rule is prevention of police "badgering
or overreaching - explicit or subtle, deliberate or unintentional." Smith
v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 98 (1984) (internal quotation marks and alter-
ation omitted). Thus, police officers may not question a suspect
despite his request for counsel "in the hope that [he] might be induced
to say something casting retrospective doubt on his initial statement
that he wished to speak through an attorney or not at all." Id. at 99
(internal quotation marks omitted). And, even after the suspect has
spoken with counsel, "officials may not reinitiate interrogation with-
out counsel present." Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146, 153
(1990).

The Supreme Court has directed that two elements be examined to
determine whether the police have obtained a statement in violation
of Edwards’ "rigid prophylactic rule." Smith, 469 U.S. at 95 (internal
quotation marks omitted). First, a court must "determine whether the
accused actually invoked his right to counsel." Id. If he did, the court
must determine who initiated the further discussions that yielded the
eventual statement. See id. If the accused, after invoking his right to
counsel, did not "initiate[ ] further discussions with the police" or
"knowingly and intelligently waive[ ] the right he had invoked," any
statement procured by the police is inadmissible at trial. Id.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina rejected Tilmon’s argument
that admission of his confession violated Miranda and Edwards, con-
cluding as follows:

In the instant case, the transcript of the pretrial hearing con-
cerning Tilmon’s motion to suppress reveals that Agent
Godfrey and Detective Casey questioned Tilmon on 23 Sep-
tember 1997. Agent Godfrey advised Tilmon of his constitu-
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 31
tional rights. Tilmon stated he wanted to talk with a lawyer.
Thereafter, Agent Godfrey informed Tilmon they could not
ask Tilmon about his involvement in the shootings of
Trooper Lowry and Deputy Hathcock because he had
requested to speak with an attorney, but Agent Godfrey told
Tilmon they did need to obtain biographical information and
background data for the arrest report. Subsequently, Agent
Godfrey asked Tilmon for his full name, address, height,
weight, next of kin, place of employment, and grade of edu-
cation he had completed. Then Tilmon asked Agent Godfrey
where he would be kept until his trial. Agent Godfrey
responded that he would be kept in the Cumberland County
jail. Tilmon then informed Agent Godfrey that he was a
vegetarian and that his religion allowed him to eat only fish
and prohibited anyone from cutting his hair or taking any-
thing from his body. Agent Godfrey asked the name of Til-
mon’s religion so he could inform jail management in order
to justify Tilmon’s request. In response, Tilmon stated he
was a member of the Rastafarian religion. Next, based on
the belief that a video camera in Trooper Lowry’s car had
recorded the incident, Tilmon asked Agent Godfrey and
Detective Casey why they wanted to talk about what had
happened because it should have been videotaped. Agent
Godfrey responded that he still needed to know why it hap-
pened. Agent Godfrey testified that at the time he made this
statement, he knew there was no videotape and that neither
he nor Detective Casey ever indicated to Tilmon there was
a videotape. Tilmon then stated he would tell Agent Godfrey
and Detective Casey why it happened. Tilmon proceeded,
over a lengthy interview process which included several
breaks, to make a statement concerning the shooting inci-
dent. . . .

Although Tilmon asserted his right to counsel and the police
continued to ask Tilmon questions, the questions were
included in the exception for questions used to elicit bio-
graphical information. In addition, it is unreasonable to say
Agent Godfrey should have known his questions concerning
Tilmon’s biographical information were reasonably likely to
elicit an incriminating response, and there was no reason
32 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
Agent Godfrey should have known his response to Tilmon’s
questions about where he would be housed until the time of
trial would elicit an incriminating response. Moreover, Til-
mon initiated the further discussion when he asked why
Agent Godfrey and Detective Casey wanted to talk about
the incident when it had been videotaped. Agent Godfrey
merely responded to Tilmon’s question that they needed to
know why it happened. Nothing should have led Agent
Godfrey to believe his response to the question would elicit
an incriminating response.

Golphin, 533 S.E. 2d at 200-01 (citations omitted).

B.

In this particular case, we believe it is unnecessary to consider
whether the Supreme Court of North Carolina unreasonably applied
Miranda and Edwards. Tilmon’s case arises under § 2254, and we
may not grant him relief for constitutional errors committed in state
court absent a showing that the error "‘had a substantial and injurious
effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’" Brecht v.
Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United
States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 (1946)). This approach to harmless error
recognizes concerns for "federalism, comity, and finality." Cooper v.
Taylor, 103 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Moreover,
"[r]etrying defendants whose convictions are set aside also imposes
significant ‘social costs’ including . . . the frustration of ‘society’s
interest in the prompt administration of justice.’" Brecht, 507 U.S. at
637 (quoting United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 72 (1986)
(internal quotation marks omitted)).

The Brecht standard applies even in cases like this one, in which
the state courts did not consider the harmless nature of a trial error.
Fry v. Pliler, 127 S. Ct. 2321, 2327-28 (2007). Because the record in
this case shows that any potential error did not have a "substantial and
injurious effect" on the jury’s verdict, we cannot grant Tilmon’s peti-
tion.

As a starting point, Tilmon argues that harmless error has an
extremely limited role in the context of confessions. The Supreme
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 33
Court has held, however, that confessions are susceptible to harmless-
error review on direct appeal, a context in which the State bears a
higher burden of proving the harmlessness of an error. Arizona v. Ful-
minante, 499 U.S. 279, 295 (1991). In Fulminante, the Court did cau-
tion that "[a] confession is like no other evidence," id. at 296, for "a
full confession in which the defendant discloses the motive for and
means of the crime may tempt the jury to rely upon that evidence
alone in reaching its decision," id. In concluding that the State had not
shown that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the
Court focused on the fact that, absent the confession, no prosecution
was even likely because "the physical evidence from the scene and
other circumstantial evidence would have been insufficient to con-
vict." Id. at 297.

Tilmon relies on Fulminante to contend that, because his was a
"full confession," it must have had a substantial and injurious effect
on the jury verdict at both the guilt and sentencing phases. We dis-
agree.

First, although Tilmon’s confession was a full confession, this is
not a case in which the State failed to present other physical evidence
tying Tilmon to the murders of Deputy Hathcock and Trooper Lowry.
For instance, Tilmon’s driver’s license was inside Trooper Lowry’s
vehicle; when Tilmon was arrested, he had Deputy Hathcock’s ser-
vice weapon; and the SKS rifle was recovered from the wrecked
Camry. Moreover, numerous witnesses identified Tilmon as a partici-
pant in the shootings. By way of example, the Supreme Court of
North Carolina summarized one witness’s testimony as follows:

Janice Hocutt and her niece were traveling south on I-95 as
they approached the scene where two police vehicles and a
bluish-green car were pulled over. Hocutt saw a black male,
who was wearing an "orange-brownish" hooded sweatshirt,
facing south between the green car and the police vehicles.
An officer was standing in front of him facing north. Hocutt
saw the black male moving toward the officer, and then she
saw something brown being sprayed by the officer. The offi-
cer began backing away from the black male and then fell.
She then saw the black male kick and punch the officer on
the ground. She never saw the officer get up. Hocutt identi-
34 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER
fied Tilmon as the black male she saw kicking and punching
the officer on the ground.

Golphin, 533 S.E.2d at 185.

Other witnesses provided probative evidence supporting Tilmon’s
conviction as well. For example, Waters testified that Tilmon was the
one who pointed the rifle at him, while Kevin confessed that Tilmon
shot the SKS rifle. In short, unlike Fulminante, this is not a case in
which, absent Tilmon’s confession, the State would have had insuffi-
cient evidence to support a conviction. See, e.g., Taylor v. Maddox,
366 F.3d 992, 1017 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding substantial and injurious
effect under Brecht where confession was the only "solid evidence"
against defendant and the remaining evidence was "paper-thin");
Alvarez v. Gomez, 185 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 1999) (admission of
confession under Brecht not harmless when defendant "was convicted
of first degree murder under a felony-murder theory" and "[a]bsent
the recorded confessions, there was no other evidence before the jury
linking him to the predicate felony charged by the state" (emphasis
in original)).

Instead, the evidence against Tilmon was overwhelming, which is
more than the Brecht Court’s own conclusion that the evidence in that
case was "if not overwhelming, certainly weighty." Brecht, 507 U.S.
at 639. See also Cooper, 103 F.3d at 371 (finding error in admitting
confession harmless under Brecht where remaining evidence was
"overwhelming and one-sided"); Samuels v. Mann, 13 F.3d 522, 528
(2d Cir. 1993) (affirming harmless error under Brecht where evidence
of guilt was "comprehensively shown without reference to the code-
fendants’ statements"). We thus find it "highly unlikely," Richmond
v. Polk, 375 F.3d 309, 335 (4th Cir. 2004), that the jury would have
declined to convict Tilmon of first-degree murder absent his confes-
sion. Instead, "in light of the record as a whole," Brecht, 507 U.S. at
638, we cannot say that the admission of Tilmon’s confession "sub-
stantially swayed" the jury. Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 765. A mountain
of evidence indicates that Tilmon killed two police officers in the line
of duty after participating in an armed robbery earlier in the day.

We also cannot say any potential error in admitting Tilmon’s con-
fession had a substantial and injurious effect on the sentencing phase.
 GOLPHIN v. BRANKER 35
The jury’s guilt-phase verdict included the finding that Tilmon had
knowingly and willfully killed two police officers. During sentencing,
Tilmon put forth numerous witnesses in mitigation, and yet the jury
found only one of a total of forty-one statutory and non-statutory miti-
gating factors offered on his behalf. In contrast, the jury found all four
statutory aggravating factors submitted to it for each murder. We can-
not see how admission of Tilmon’s confession impacted the sentenc-
ing verdict in any manner. In fact, Tilmon relied on his confession for
its potential mitigating value at sentencing, an argument that the jury
rejected in declining to find two non-statutory mitigating factors relat-
ing to Tilmon’s confession: that "shortly after arrest, Tilmon Golphin
admitted to law enforcement officers his responsibility for the homi-
cides" and that "Tilmon Golphin has expressed remorse for the mur-
ders to the interviewing officers and his grandparents." (J.A. at 899.)
Moreover, during the sentencing phase, the State offered additional
evidence of Tilmon’s mindset by way of the letters in which Tilmon
called police officers "PORK CHOPS" and bragged about being a
"COP KILLA." (J.A. at 690.) These letters were far more inflamma-
tory than anything in Tilmon’s confession.

In sum, even assuming the Supreme Court of North Carolina
unreasonably applied Miranda and Edwards in affirming the admis-
sion of Tilmon’s confession, we cannot say that admission of Til-
mon’s confession had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury
verdict at either Tilmon’s guilt or sentencing phase. Accordingly, we
cannot grant Tilmon’s writ on this ground either. See Brecht, 507 U.S.
at 639.

V.

In reviewing the events of Tilmon’s jury trial, we cannot say that
the Supreme Court of North Carolina unreasonably applied Batson or
that the admission of Tilmon’s confession, even assuming it was erro-
neous, caused a substantial and injurious effect on the jury verdict.
Accordingly, the decision of the district court dismissing Tilmon’s
§ 2254 petition must be

AFFIRMED.