Case Name: Jeffrey Clayton KANDIES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marvin POLK, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-24
Citations: 385 F.3d 457
Docket Number: No. 03-9
Parties: Jeffrey Clayton KANDIES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marvin POLK, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 385
Pages: 457–503

Head Matter:
Jeffrey Clayton KANDIES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marvin POLK, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-9.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 2, 2004.
Decided Sept. 24, 2004.
ARGUED: Milton Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Rudolf, Widenhouse & Fialko, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Edwin William Welch, Special Deputy Attorney General, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Matthew Stiegler, Center for Death Penalty Litigation, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge GREGORY wrote a separate opinion and announced the judgment. Judge MICHAEL wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment. Judge TRAXLER wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment.
OPINION
GREGORY, Circuit Judge,
writing separately in parts I, II, III, IV and announcing the judgment in part V:
Petitioner-appellant Jeffrey Clayton Kandies was sentenced to death after being found guilty by a North Carolina jury of the first-degree rape and first-degree murder of Natalie Lynn Osborne, the four-year-old daughter of his fiancee, Patricia Craven. Following exhaustion of his rights of review in the North Carolina courts, Kandies filed a petition for a writ habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 the United States District Court for Middle District of North Carolina asserting fourteen grounds for relief. Pursuant to the Federal Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the district court referred Kandies's habeas petition to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge reviewed Kandies's claims and recommended that Kandies's habeas petition be denied. After Kandies objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court reviewed de novo, as required by the Federal Magistrate Act, id. 636(b)(1), and adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation. In addition, the district court declined to issue Kandies a certificate of appealability for any of his claims. We subsequently issued Kandies a certificate of appealability for his claims that (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the penalty phase by failing to investigate whether he was sexually abused as a child and (2) the North Carolina Supreme Court erred by concluding that the State's use of peremptory challenges to strike prospective African American jurors was not violative of the Supreme Court's holding in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). For the reason's that follow, we affirm the district court's denial of Kandies's habeas petition.
I.
On Easter Monday, April 20, 1992, Kan-dies, who is a Caucasian American, went to the home of Patricia Craven, who was his fiancee at the time and the mother of his one-year-old son, Jeremy. At approximately 4:45 p.m., Kandies left Ms. Craven's home to go to the grocery store, which is around the same time that Ms. Craven last saw her daughter, Natalie, alive. At approximately 7 p.m., Kandies, who had not returned to Ms. Craven's home, went to a small convenience store located about one-half mile from Ms. Craven's home. While inside the convenience store, Kandies complained to the clerk, Carolyn Wood, that he hurt his hand fighting with his brother. In response, Wood, who noticed that Kandies's hand was beginning to swell, suggested that Kandies have his hand examined by a medical technician that happened to be inside the store. Kandies, however, declined to have the medical technician examine his hand and immediately left the store. Thereafter, Kandies returned to Ms. Craven's home at approximately 7:30 p.m.
Upon arriving at Ms. Craven's home, Kandies was informed that Natalie could not be located. Consequently, Kandies contacted the Asheboro Police Department and reported Natalie missing. In response to Kandies's telephone call, the Asheboro Police Department conducted an extensive, but unsuccessful, search for Natalie on the evening of April 20th. Nonetheless, the Asheboro Police Department learned through its search and investigation that Ms. Craven and Natalie's father, Ed Osbourne, were involved in a custody dispute. Based on this information, the Asheboro Police Department began to suspect that Ms. Craven and Kandies may have falsely reported Natalie missing in an effort to prevent Ed Osbourne from gaining custody of Natalie. As a result, the Asheboro Police Department undertook efforts on April 21st, the day after Natalie was reported missing, to determine whether Ms. Craven and Kandies were hiding Natalie. As part of these efforts, the Asheboro Police Department requested Kandies's permission to search his apartment, which was located approximately ten miles from Ms. Craven's home in the town of Randleman, North Carolina. After Kandies consented to the search, the Ashe-boro Police Department searched Kan-dies's apartment and concluded that Natalie was not there.
In addition to searching Kandies's apartment, the Asheboro Police Department brought Ms. Craven and Kandies in for questioning on April 22nd. After being questioned and released by the Asheboro Police Department, Kandies returned to Ms. Craven's home, where she immediately began to question him about Natalie's disappearance. As a result, Kandies told Ms. Craven that he accidentally hit Natalie with his truck as he departed for the grocery during the early evening of April 20th. Kandies also told Ms. Craven that he panicked after hitting Natalie because he was drinking and thus decided to take Natalie to his apartment, where he would be able to clean her off and determine the extent of her injuries. Kandies further told Ms. Craven that Natalie was making gurgling noises on the way to his apartment and that her head did not look right. Lastly, Kandies told Ms. Craven that, after trying to clean Natalie up, he placed Natalie's body and her clothes in a garbage bag that he hid in a bedroom closet.
Immediately after speaking with Kan-dies, Ms. Craven contacted the Asheboro Police Department and described what she had been told by Kandies. The Asheboro Police Department thereafter took Kan-dies into custody, where, after being read his Miranda rights, he provided two separate statements detailing the events of April 20th. In addition, Kandies provided the Asheboro Police Department information about the location of Natalie's body and consented, in writing, to a second search of his apartment. Accordingly, the Asheboro Police Department searched Kandies's apartment and found Natalie's body in a plastic bag hidden in a bedroom closet under a pile of clothes and carpet pieces. The plastic bag found by the Asheboro Police Department also contained Natalie's bloody playsuit and underpants, which were both turned inside out.
After Natalie's body was recovered, Dr. Thomas Clark, a forensic pathologist, performed an autopsy, which revealed that there were blunt force traumas on Natalie's head, neck, skull, back and both sides of her body. In addition, Dr. Clark's autopsy revealed that some of the bruises on Natalie's body were small and rounded and distributed in a pattern that suggested they were caused by an adult hand. Moreover, Dr. Clark's autopsy revealed that there were injuries to Natalie's vaginal area. Specifically, Dr. Clark found that (1) both sides of Natalie's vagina, which was full of blood, were bruised, (2) blunt force trauma caused a tear in the back of Natalie's vagina, and (3) Natalie's vagina opening was gaping. In light of these injuries to Natalie's vaginal area, Dr. Clark opined that Natalie had been sexually assaulted at or about the time of her death.
Based on the findings of Dr. Clark's autopsy, the Asheboro Police Department brought Kandies in for further questioning on the evening of April 23rd. During this interrogation, the officers investigating Natalie's death mentioned that there was a possibility that she may have been sexually assaulted. In response, Kandies stated: " T told [Ms. Craven] you were going to say I did something like that to Natalie.' " State v. Kandies, 342 N.C. 419, 467 S.E.2d 67, 74 (1996)(quoting Kandies's statements to police). Thereafter, Kandies provided the Asheboro Police Department with a written statement denying that he sexually ment, Kandies also asserted that he took Natalie to his house, took her clothes off placed her inside the bathtub to determine the extent of her injuries. Kandies further asserted in his written statement that he was unable to handle the situation as result may have strangled Natalie. addition to Kandies's written statement, Asheboro Police Department complet-a suspect rape kit on Kandies, which included samples of head and pubic hair, saliva and blood. Moreover, a forensic serologist conducted a luminal and blood test on Kandies's apartment and truck, which revealed the presence of blood in several areas of the apartment and on the interior of the truck's passenger door.
On May 11, 1992, Kandies was indicted by a grand jury in the Randolph County Superior Court for the first-degree murder of Natalie. On July 13, 1992, Kandies was also indicted in the Randolph County Superior Court for the first-degree rape of Natalie. On April 4, 1994, jury selection commenced for Kandies's capital trial. During jury selection, the State exercised its peremptory challenges to strike nine prospective African American jurors. On each occasion, Kandies's trial counsel asserted that the State was striking these prospective jurors because of their race and was thus acting in contravention to the Supreme Court's holding in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). In response, the State voluntarily put forth race neutral reasons for peremptorily challenging each of the nine prospective African American jurors. After listening to the reasons proffered by the State, the Randolph County Superior Court denied all of the Batson challenges raised by Kandies's trial counsel. At the end of jury selection, the twelve member jury empaneled for Kandies's capital trial included two African Americans.
After the jury was empaneled, Kandies was tried during the April 4, 1992 criminal session of the Randolph County Superior Court. During the guilt phase, Kandies's trial counsel did not present any evidence to rebut the State's case-in-chief. Consequently, Kandies was found guilty, on April 20, 1994, of the first-degree murder and first-degree rape of Natalie. After the jury rendered its guilty verdict, the court scheduled Kandies's sentencing hearing for the following day. At Kandies's sentencing hearing, his trial counsel presented the testimony of ten witnesses, among which included Dr. Brian Glover and Dr. Claudia Coleman, clinical psychologists, and Kandies's mother, Peggy Kan-dies.
Dr. Glover, who met with Kandies on three separate occasions for approximately three hours each time, testified that Kan-dies suffered from severe alcohol dependence. In doing so, Dr. Glover stated that Kandies (1) began consuming alcohol and marijuana on a regular basis by the age of fourteen and on a daily basis by the age of seventeen, (2) consumed approximately twelve to twenty-four beers on a daily basis in the years immediately preceding Natalie's murder, and (3) was so intoxicated on the day of Natalie's murder that his judgment was impaired and he could not control his emotions. In addition, Dr. Glover opined that on the day of Natalie's murder Kandies was suffering from a mental disorder and that his ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct was impaired. Dr. Glover's investigation into Kandies's background, however, did not uncover any childhood sexual abuse or in-dicia that Kandies may have been sexually abused as a child.
Dr. Coleman, who has considerable experience performing psychological evaluations on criminal defendants, testified that she met with Kandies on two separate occasions for approximately three hours each time. Dr. Coleman also testified that during these meetings she conducted several psychological tests on Kandies, such as screening for intelligence and neurological impairments. Dr. Coleman further testified that she reviewed Kandies's school records, work records, military records, and police reports from the investigation of Natalie's death. Based on her review of these records and meetings with Kandies, Dr. Coleman opined that Kandies suffered from a personality disorder and alcohol dependence. Dr. Coleman also opined that Kandies suffered from emotional and mental disturbances that impaired his judgment on the date of Natalie's death. Like Dr. Glover, however, Dr. Coleman's investigation into Kandies's background did not uncover childhood sexual abuse or indications that he may have been sexually abused.
Peggy Kandies testified that her son became extremely angry for a period of time when he learned at the age of fourteen that his stepfather, Steve Kandies, was not his biological father and that his true biological father was dead. She also testified that when Kandies was a child, he saw his stepfather verbally and physically abuse her. She further testified that Kan-dies's stepfather was an alcoholic. Lastly, Peggy Kandies testified that Kandies was a loving father, whose children visited him in prison following his arrest for Natalie's death, and that he had served in the military. She did not, however, testify, or indicate to Kandies's trial counsel, that Kandies was sexually abused as a child.
After Kandies's trial counsel presented its mitigating evidence, the State called Ms. Craven as its sole witness during the penalty phase of Kandies's trial. Ms. Craven testified that she did not live with Kandies and that she never gave Kandies blank permission to take Natalie to his apartment.
Based on the evidence presented during the penalty phase of Kandies's trial, the jury found two aggravating factors: (1) Kandies murdered Natalie during the commission of first-degree rape and (2) the murder of Natalie was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. The jury also found three of the five proposed statutory mitigating factors and eighteen of the proposed twenty-eight nonstatutory mitigating factors. After balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the jury sentenced Kandies to death for the first-degree murder of Natalie.
On direct appeal, Kandies asserted, among other things, that the Randolph County Superior Court erred by overrul ing his Batson challenges to the State's use of peremptory challenges to strike nine prospective African American jurors. In rejecting Kandies's Batson claim, the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that Kandies failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that the race neutral reasons proffered by the State were pretextual. Kandies, 467 S.E.2d at 75-77. Consequently, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the Randolph County Superior Court "correctly ruled that the State did not exclude any [of the nine prospective African American] jurors based solely upon their race in violation of Batson." Id. at 76. Accordingly, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Kandies's' conviction ' and death sentence. The United States Supreme Court thereafter denied Kandies's petition for a writ of certiorari. Kandies v. North Carolina, 519 U.S. 894, 117 S.Ct. 237, 136 L.Ed.2d 167 (1996).
On September 26, 1997, Kandies filed a post-conviction motion for appropriate relief ("MAR") in the Randolph County Superior Court asserting, among other things, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the penalty phase by failing to investigate whether he was sexually abused as a child. In support of this claim, Kandies submitted an affidavit alleging that he was sexually abused by his uncle, Ronald Kandies, when he was six years old:
These incidents of sexual abuse took place'when I was living in New York State. My uncle, who was an adult 15-20 years older than me, would touch my private parts with his hand. ' He would also make me touch his private parts. He would also take showers with me and fondle me while in the shower. My uncle would buy me toys such as GI Joe's [sic] in order to get me not to tell anybody about what he was doing to me. These traumatic experiences haunted me throughout my adult life.
J.A. 1371. In reviewing Kandies's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court noted that the affidavit submitted by his trial counsel demonstrated that the subject of Kandies's alleged childhood sexual abuse did not come up during the "numerous interviews [he had] with . Kandies, members of [Kandies's] family, friends and mental health professionals regarding items in . Kandies['] background that could be presented as mitigating factors." Id. at 1381. In addition, the court noted that Kandies "never told [his] trial counsel about alleged childhood sexual abuse." Id. at 1382. Moreover, the court concluded that the failure on the part of Kandies's trial counsel "to question [Kandies] about . childhood sexual abuse was not per se ineffective assistance." Id. at 1383. Consequently, the court held that Kandies's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was without merit. Accordingly, the court, after rejecting the other ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised by Kandies, denied Kandies's MAR without holding an evidentiary hearing. In doing so, however, the court did not make an express finding that an evidentiary hearing was not required to resolve any dispositive facts in dispute.
On November 5, 1998, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted Kandies's petition for a writ of certiorari for the limited purpose of remanding his MAR to the Randolph County Superior Court for reconsideration in light of its holding in State v. McHone, 348 N.C. 254, 499 S.E.2d 761, 762-64 (1998), which held, among other things, that a post-conviction court must make an express finding as to whether an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve dispositive facts in dispute. On November 30, 1998, Kandies filed an amended MAR seeking to raise several additional ineffective assistance of counsel claims. On April 29, 1999, the Randolph County Superior Court affirmed its prior denial of Kandies's MAR, expressly finding that an evidentia-ry hearing was not required because there were no disputes concerning any disposi-tive facts. In addition, the court declined to consider the additional claims raised in Kandies's amended MAR, finding that these claims were not authorized by the North Carolina Supreme Court's remand order and were procedurally barred under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A-1419. Kandies thereafter petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was summarily denied on August 19, 1999.
On October 7,1999, Kandies filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina asserting fourteen grounds for relief. On March 8, 2000, the district court referred Kandies's habeas petition to a magistrate judge. On December 14, 2000, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that Kandies's habeas petition be denied. On December 18, 2000, Kandies objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation. After granting Kan-dies's motion to extend time to file his objections to the magistrate judge's recommendations, the district court issued an order on March 4, 2003 accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and declining to issue Kandies a certificate of appeal-ability for any of the claims raised in his habeas petition. On March 23, 2004, we issued Kandies a certificate of appealability for his claims that (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the penalty phase by failing to investigate whether he was sexually abused as a child and (2) the State's use of peremptory challenges to strike nine prospective African American jurors violated Batson.
II.
"We review de novo a district court's decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus based on a state court record." Spicer v. Roxbury Corr. Inst., 194 F.3d 547, 555 (4th Cir.1999). Because Kandies filed his habeas petition after the effective date of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), our de novo review is limited by the standards set forth by AEDPA. Under AEDPA, if a state court has resolved the merits of a claim for post-conviction relief, as is the case here, a federal court may not issue a writ of habeas corpus unless the state court's holding was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or "resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." Id. § 2254(d)(2).
In the present case, we must determine whether the state court's adjudication of Kandies's claims was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." Id. § 2254(d)(1). To issue Kan-dies a 'writ of habeas corpus, however, we need not find that the state court's adjudication of his claims was both "contrary to" and an "unreasonable application" of clearly established federal law. In Williams v. Taylor, the Supreme Court expressly held that AEDPA's "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" clauses have independent meanings. 529 U.S. 362, 404-05, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). Thus, we may issue Kandies a writ of habeas corpus if we determine that the state court adjudicated his claims in a manner that was either contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law.
A state court's adjudication of a claim is contrary to clearly established federal law "if the state court applies a rule different from the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court's] eases, or if it decides a case differently than [the Supreme Court has] on a set of materially indistinguishable facts." Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002). A state court's adjudication of a claim constitutes an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law "if the state court correctly identifies the governing legal principle from [the Supreme Court's] decisions, but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular case." Id. Because the Supreme Court has stated that an "unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law," Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 410, 120 S.Ct. 1495, we may not issue Kandies a writ of habeas corpus solely because we determine in our "independent judgment that the state-court decision applied [a Supreme Court] case incorrectly." Price v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634, 641, 123 S.Ct. 1848, 155 L.Ed.2d 877 (2003)(quoting Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24-25, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002)(per curiam)). Thus, in order to grant Kandies's habeas petition we must conclude that the state court's adjudication of his claims was not only incorrect, but that, it was objectively unreasonable.
III.
I begin with Kandies's argument that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the penalty phase by breaching the duty to reasonably investigate mitigating evidence. Specifically, Kandies argues that his trial counsel breached the duty to reasonably investigate mitigating evidence, and thus rendered ineffective assistance, by failing to retain a mitigation expert and directly inquire about childhood sexual abuse.
A. In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set forth a two-part test that defendants must satisfy before succeeding on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). First, a defendant must show that defense counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, the proper measure of which is prevailing professional norms. Id. at 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Second, a defendant must show that he or she was prejudiced by defense counsel's objectively unreasonable performance. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. In the context of a capital sentencing proceeding, such as the one before us, a defendant establishes prejudice by showing "there is a reasonable probability that, absent [his trial counsel's objectively unreasonable performance], the sentencer . would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death." Id. at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To make such a showing, a defendant need not establish a reasonable probability that the entire jury would have voted against the imposition of a death sentence, but rather, that "there is a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have struck a different balance." Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 537, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003)(emphasis added). " 'A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' " Glover v. Miro, 262 F.3d 268, 275 (4th Cir.2001)(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052). In determining whether a defendant has carried his burden of showing there is a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have declined to impose a death sentence if presented with certain mitigating evidence, "we reweigh the evidence in aggravation against the totality of available mitigating evidence." Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 534, 123 S.Ct. 2527.
Before turning to the merits of Kan-dies's claim, it is important to note that Strickland's two-part test is an onerous one to satisfy because "counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment." 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. This strong presumption is justified by the fact that counsel is often forced to make instantaneous decisions without the hindsight that appellate courts, especially habeas courts, enjoy. Id. at 689-90, 104 S.Ct. 2052. As the Supreme Court noted in Strickland: "It is all too tempting for a defendant to second-guess counsel's assistance after conviction or adverse sentence, and it is all too easy for a court, examining counsel's defense after it has proved unsuccessful, to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable." Id. at 689,104 S.Ct. 2052.
B.
The Supreme Court has expressly held that defense counsel has a professional "obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant's background." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 396, 120 S.Ct. 1495; see also Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 523-34, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (holding that defense counsel breached duty to conduct complete investigation of defendant's background); Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (stating that defense counsel "has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary"). In determining whether defense counsel breached this duty, "we must conduct an objective review of [counsel's] performance, measured for reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, which includes a context-dependent consideration of the challenged conduct as seen from counsel's perspective at the time." Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 523, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). It is also necessary to keep in mind that defense counsel is not required to "investigate every conceivable line of mitigating evidence no matter how unlikely the effort would be to assist the defendant at sentencing" or "to present mitigating evidence at sentencing in every case." Id. at 533, 121 S.Ct. 2381.
In the present case, Kandies asserts that his trial counsel breached the duty to thoroughly investigate his background by failing to retain the services of a mitigation expert. This argument fails for several reasons. First, Kandies's argument, if accepted, would create a per se rule requiring defense counsel to retain a mitigation expert in every capital case. The Supreme Court, while using standards such as those set forth by the American Bar Association as guides for what is reasonable, has repeatedly declined to adopt a rigid checklist of things that defense counsel must do in all cases because "[n]o particular set of detailed rules for counsel's conduct can satisfactorily take account of the variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel or the range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688-89, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Moreover, the Court has expressly stated that the adoption of a rigid checklist for counsel's conduct "would interfere with the 'constitutionally protected independence of counsel' at the heart of Strickland." Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 533, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052). Consequently, the Supreme Court has made it clear that defense counsel must be afforded the discretion to determine whether the retention of an expert will serve the interests of his or her client and, if so, what type of expert would best do so.
Second, Kandies's argument incorrectly assumes that the services of a mitigation expert are the exclusive means through which defense counsel can thoroughly investigate a defendant's background. While the services of a mitigation expert will undoubtedly prove useful in many instances, they are by no means the only manner through which defense counsel can thoroughly investigate a defendant's background. For instance, there will be some circumstances where the assistance of lay persons, such as family, friends and colleagues, is more useful in discovering and presenting mitigating evidence than that of a mitigation expert. There will also be some instances where defense counsel's experience in trying capital cases and presenting mitigating evidence will render the services of a mitigation expert unnecessary. While the retention of a mitigation expert in these instances may nonetheless be advisable, I do not believe defense counsel should be required, or feel compelled, to do so.
Kandies also argues that his trial counsel failed to thoroughly investigate his background by not specifically inquiring into whether he was sexually abused as a child. In so arguing, Kandies asserts that his trial counsel had a duty to specifically inquire about childhood sexual abuse because numerous studies have found that men who commit acts of child abuse are far more likely than the general population to have been sexually abused as children. To the contrary, I believe the interests of criminal defendants are better served when defense counsel has the discretion to consider the circumstances of a particular case and determine whether a specific inquiry regarding childhood sexual abuse should be under-taken. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, "[n]o particular set of detailed rules for counsel's conduct can satisfactorily take account of the variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel or the range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688-89, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
In reviewing counsel's conduct, I limit my inquiry to a determination of whether the state court was "unreasonable" in concluding that counsel's performance was objectively reasonable under prevailing professional norms. In this case, Kandies's trial counsel conducted "numerous interviews with . Kandies, members of [Kan-dies's] family, Mends and mental health professionals regarding possible items in . Kandies's background that could be presented as mitigating factors." J.A. 1374. Despite these open-ended interviews, "the subject of child sexual abuse . was never raised." Id. In addition, Kandies's trial counsel had two clinically trained psychologists, Drs. Grover and Coleman, investigate Kandies's background in hopes of discovering mitigating evidence. Dr. Grover, who focused primarily on the history of Kandies's substance abuse, interviewed Kandies on three separate occasions for approximately two hours each time and conducted telephone interviews with three of Kandies's acquaintances. However, Dr. Grover did not find any indicia of Kandies's alleged childhood sexual abuse. Dr. Coleman, a neuro and forensic psychologist, met with Kandies on two separate occasions for approximately three hours each time. During these meetings, Dr. Coleman screened Kandies for neurological and intelligence impairments. Moreover, Dr. Coleman reviewed Kandies's school records, work records, military records and police records related to the investigation of Natalie's death. Despite this comprehensive investigation of Kandies's background, Dr. Coleman did not find any indications that Kandies may have been sexually abused as a child.
As demonstrated above, Kandies's trial counsel thoroughly investigated Kandies's background for any mitigating evidence. Indeed, these efforts resulted in the jury finding twenty-one of the thirty-three mitigating factors presented by Kandies's trial counsel. Thus, I cannot conclude that the failure on the part of Kandies's trial counsel to inquire about Kandies's alleged childhood sexual abuse was due to a halfhearted investigation into Kandies's background. Accordingly, I conclude based on all of the circumstances of this case and the investigation conducted by Kandies's trial counsel, that the state court was not unreasonable in finding that his counsel's performance, despite not having retained a mitigation expert or asking a specific question about childhood sexual abuse, did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness as measured by prevailing professional norms. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
C.
Even assuming arguendo that Kandies can show that his trial counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable, I; as well as my colleagues, find that Kan-dies is unable to establish that there is a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have weighed the aggravating and mitigating evidence differently had the jury been informed that Kandies was fondled by his uncle and forced to fondle his uncle in return while living for a period in New York. In imposing a death sentence, the jury found several mitigating factors related to Kandies's difficult childhood, e.g., Kandies did not have a positive role model, came from a dysfunctional family, and was reared in an unstable environment. Nonetheless, the jury concluded that these and the other mitigating factors were outweighed by the two aggravating factors that it found, namely that Kandies murdered Natalie while raping her and that Natalie's murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. I am not convinced, at least not to the point where I lack confidence in the outcome of Kan-dies's sentencing proceeding, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, that the jury, had it been informed that Kandies was fondled by his uncle and forced to fondle his uncle in return during the period that he lived in New York, would have balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors differently. While I in no way minimize Kandies's childhood sexual abuse, if it occurred, I am not convinced that the jury, once informed of Kandies's alleged childhood sexual abuse, would not have sentenced Kandies to death after having found him guilty of the rape and murder of his fiancee's four-year-old daughter and the half-sister of his one-year-old son, dumping her body in a plastic bag and then lying about the incident for a couple of days. Clearly, the state court was not unreasonable in concluding likewise.
IV.
I now turn to Kandies's argument that the North Carolina Supreme Court's conclusion that the trial court properly overruled his objections to the State's use of peremptory challenges to remove nine prospective African American jurors is contrary to or an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court's holding in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).
A.
In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that a defendant may raise an equal protection challenge to the State's use of peremptory challenges at his or her own trial by showing that the State used such challenges for the purpose of excluding members of the defendant's race. 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. 1712. In so holding, the Supreme Court set forth a three-part test that trial courts are to employ in evaluating a defendant's allegation that the State has peremptorily challenged a prospective juror solely on the basis of race. First, a trial court must decide whether the defendant has made a prima facie showing that the circumstances surrounding the State's peremptory challenge of a prospective juror give rise to an inference that the juror was struck because of his or her race. Id. at 96, 106 S.Ct. 1712. Such an inference may be established by, inter alia, showing a pattern of peremptory challenges against non-Caucasian prospective jurors. Id. at 97, 106 S.Ct. 1712. Second, once the defendant has established a prima facie case of discrimination, the trial court must require the State to proffer a race neutral reason for striking the prospective juror. Id. The State's proffered reason need not be persuasive or even plausible because '"[ujnless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the [State's] explanation ] the reason offered will be deemed race neutral.' " Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 181 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995)(per curiam)(quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 358-59, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991)(O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment)). Thus, the State need only put forth a race neutral reason that is clear, sufficiently specific and related to the particular ease to be tried. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. Finally, after the State has proffered a race neutral reason, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has carried his or her burden of proving that the State's peremptory challenge was motivated by purposeful discrimination, i.e., that the State's proffered race neutral reason for striking a juror was pretextual. Id. at 98, 106 S.Ct. 1712.
In Powers v. Ohio, the Supreme Court extended the equal protection principle established in Batson by holding that an individual juror, while not having "a right to sit on any particular petit jury, . does possess the right not to be excluded from one on account of race." 499 U.S. at 409, 111 S.Ct. 1364. This holding was primarily based on the Court's belief that "with the exception of voting, for most citizens the honor and privilege of jury duty is their most significant opportunity to participate in the democratic process." Id. at 407, 111 S.Ct. 1364. To ensure that a prospective juror's right to not be excluded from jury duty on the basis of race is vindicated, the Court further held that criminal defendants have standing to bring an equal protection claim asserting that a prospective juror's right not to be excluded from jury duty on the basis of race has been violated. Id. at 415, 111 S.Ct. 1364. Moreover, the Court held that criminal defendants have standing to bring such challenges even when their race differs from that of the excluded juror because the failure to allow defendants of a differ ent race to bring these claims "would be to condone the arbitrary exclusion of citizens from the duty, honor, and privilege of jury service." Id. Accordingly, Kandies, who is a Caucasian American, has standing to bring his Batson claim asserting that the State improperly excluded nine prospective African American jurors because of their race.
B.
Because the State voluntarily responded to each of Kandies's Batson challenges, I presume that Kandies established a prima facie case of racial discrimination on each instance and thus turn directly to the State's proffered reasons for striking each of the nine prospective African American jurors. Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 918 (4th Cir.1997). In doing so, I consider each of the State's peremptory challenges in turn.
1. Ms. Randleman
In response to Kandies's Bat-son challenge, the State asserted that it peremptorily struck Ms. Randleman because although her juror questionnaire "form indicate[d] that she had not been convicted of any criminal offense," a check of her criminal record revealed that she had "been convicted of worthless checks and two speeding violations." J.A. 131. In addition, the State asserted that Ms. Randleman "was hesitant on death penalty questions." Id. Such reasons undoubtedly constitute race neutral reasons that are clear, sufficiently specific and related to the case. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. Consequently, once the State put forth these race neutral reasons, Kan-dies had the burden of establishing that they were pretextual. Kandies, however, failed to arg-ue that the State's proffered reasons were pretextual. In fact, Kandies did not even rebut the State's proffered reasons when given the opportunity. Having failed to argue that the State's proffered reasons were pretextual, Kandies waived his Batson challenge and thus I review it for plain error. Davis v. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 160 F.3d 1023, 1027 (4th Cir.1998)("[W]e now follow the lead of other circuits that have held that the mov-ant's failure to argue pretext constitutes a waiver of his initial objection."); see also United States v. Jackson, 347 F.3d 598, 605 (6th Cir.2003)("If a defendant fails to rebut a race-neutral explanation at the time it was made, the district court's ruling on the objection is reviewed for plain error.").
For the district court's ruling to constitute plain error, Kandies must show that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., obvious or clear, (3) the error affected substantial rights, and (4) the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-34, 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Here, I find that the trial court did not err by overruling Kan-dies's Batson challenge to the peremptory removal of Ms. Randleman because the State proffered race neutral reasons that were clear, sufficiently specific and related to the case. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. Because I find that the trial court did not commit an error in overruling Kandies's Batson challenge, I need not proceed with plain error review.
2. Ms. Jinwright
In response to Kandies's Batson challenge, the State asserted that it peremptorily struck Ms. Jinwright because "she has worked with three- or four-year-old children and was hesitant on the death penalty." J.A. 131. As previously noted, once the State put forth these race neutral reasons, Kandies had the burden of estab lishing that they were pretextual. Kan-dies, however, failed to argue that the State's proffered reasons were pretextual. Indeed, he did not even respond to the State's proffered reasons when afforded the opportunity. Consequently, I review this Batson challenge for plain error, which I do not find. Davis, 160 F.3d at 1027. The race neutral reasons proffered by the State were clear, sufficiently specific and related to the case, which is all that Batson requires in the second part of its three-part test. 476 U.S. at 97-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712.
3. Ms. Massey
In response to Kandies's Batson challenge, the prosecutor stated that Ms. Massey was peremptorily challenged because she:
had trouble understanding me, and I think she has a hearing problem because she continuously answered with difficulty, and I had difficulty getting her to understand my questions, and so I excused Ms. Massey because of her hearing problems, and I had some difficulty understanding her answer to the questions I asked her.
J.A. 131. After the State set forth these race neutral reasons, Kandies had the burden of establishing that they were pretex-tual. However, as with Ms. Randleman and Ms. Jinwright, Kandies failed to even respond to the State's proffered reasons when given the opportunity. Consequently, I review this Batson challenge for plain error. Davis, 160 F.3d at 1027. In doing so, I find that the trial court did not err by overruling Kandies's Batson challenge because the State's proffered race neutral reasons were clear, sufficiently specific and related to the case. 476 U.S. at 97-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. Accordingly, I need not proceed with plain error review.
It & 5. Ms. Rawlinson and Mr. McClure
In response to Kandies's Batson challenge, the prosecutor stated that Ms. Raw-linson and Mr. McClure were peremptorily struck because:
Ms. Rawlinson had not even thought about the death penalty, certainly was not [sic] a strong opinion for or against the death penalty. And Mr. McClure was in a similar situation except that he also—my officer noticed that he nodded off at least twice. Not that I'm saying this was the most interesting part of the trial, but I certainly do not believe he was paying sufficient attention in this case, though. Also, I discussed the jury panel with the High Point Police Department, and they indicated Mr. McClure and Ms. Rawlinson would not be good jurors for this type of case.
J.A. 167. When asked by the court to elaborate on his proffered reasons for striking Ms. Rawlinson and Mr. McClure, the prosecutor asserted: "I asked most everybody and basically indicated [sic] anyone that they had any contact with prior to the trial. Primarily, the reason was they were weak on the death penalty." Id. at 168.
In assessing the State's proffered reasons, I begin by noting that it is completely proper for prosecutors to contact police to determine whether a prospective juror has a criminal record or has had' any prior contact with police. I also note that prosecutors are free to solicit from police advice on a prospective juror's stance on the death penalty, as apparently was done here. In doing so, however, I observe that in most instances police will not have a basis upon which to render such advice. Of course, there may be some rare instances where police can advise prosecutors about a prospective juror's stance on the death penalty due to some prior contact where the prospective juror and police discussed at-length the death penalty or an officer heard the prospective juror discussing his or her views on the death penalty. Here, when given the opportunity, the State failed to set forth the basis upon which the High Point Police Department concluded that Ms. Rawlinson and Mr. McClure "would not be good jurors for this type of case" because "they were weak on the death penalty question." Id. at 167-68. Moreover, the State's assertion that the High Point Police Department indicated that Ms. Rawlinson and Mr. McClure were weak on the death penalty contradicts its observation, after questioning and observing Ms. Rawlinson and Mr. McClure, that they "were not a[sic] strong opinion for or against the death penalty." Id. at 167.
Accordingly, the State's assertion that it struck Ms. Rawlinson and Mr. McClure because the High Point Police Department "indicated [they] would not be good jurors for this type of case," id. at 167, raises suspicion. Nonetheless, I conclude that this proffered reason was race neutral because a discriminatory intent is not inherent in this explanation. Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769. Because the State proffered this race neutral reason that was clear, sufficiently specific and at least arguably related to the case, Batson, 476 U.S. at 97-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712, Kandies had the burden of establishing that it was pre-textual, which Kandies failed to do. Kan-dies could have met his burden, for example, by establishing that the prosecution only discussed prospective African American jurors with the High Point Police Department or that the High Point Police Department's assertions were solely based on race.
I am equally suspicious of the State's assertion that it removed Ms. Raw-linson and Mr. McClure because they did not hold a strong position on the death penalty. Such prospective jurors are exactly the ones that should be empaneled for a capital trial. Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 735-36, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992)(holding that defendant has right to remove for cause prospective jurors who would always impose a death sentence after finding a defendant guilty of a capital crime); Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 n. 5, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985)(holding that "the State may exclude from capital sentencing juries that 'class' of veniremen whose views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties in accordance with their instructions or their oaths"). Nonetheless, because a discriminatory intent is not inherent in this proffered reason, I must deem it race neutral. Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769. Accordingly, Kandies had the burden of showing that this race neutral reason, which was clear, sufficiently specific and related to the case, Batson, 476 U.S. at 97-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712, was pretextual. This, however, Kandies failed to do.
The State's last reason for striking Mr. McClure—his lack of attentiveness—clearly satisfies Batson. It is a race neutral reason that is clear, sufficiently specific and related to the case. A juror's attentiveness is clearly pertinent and vitally important to a capital case because jurors are being asked to make a decision between life and death.
6. Mr. Campbell
In response to Kandies's Batson challenge, the prosecutor stated that he used a peremptory challenge to strike Mr. Campbell because:
[Mr. Campbell] did not believe in the death penalty, and considering that [it] is a possible punishment in this case I just didn't feel that he would be a qualified juror in the case. It would not matter what his answer would be to the question about following the law. Furthermore, a record check indicates that a person named Fred Campbell has a prior common law robbery conviction, but without a file here I didn't feel I[had] . enough evidence to challenge him [on] this point.
J.A. 583. Given that, as discussed above, the Supreme Court has held that "the State may exclude from capital sentencing juries that 'class' of veniremen whose views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties in accordance with their instructions or their oaths," Wainwright, 469 U.S. at 424 n. 5, 105 S.Ct. 844, I find that the State's proffered race neutral reason satisfied Batson because it was clear, sufficiently specific and related to the case. 476 U.S. at 97-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. Thus, Kandies had the burden of establishing that this reason was pretextual, which he attempted to do by noting that Mr. Campbell stated that he would be able to follow the law despite his opposition to the death penalty. This argument, however, fails to establish that the State's proffered reason for peremptorily striking Mr. Campbell was pretextual because "a juror could, in good conscience, swear to uphold the law and yet be unaware that maintaining . dogmatic beliefs about the death penalty would prevent him or her from doing so." Morgan, 504 U.S. at 735, 112 S.Ct. 2222.
7. Mr. Hines
In response to Kandies's Batson challenge, the State asserted that it exercised a peremptory strike to remove Mr. Hines because Mr. Hines was "worried about his employment and his loss of income . [H]e ha[d] never thought about the death penalty . [and] records indicate that he had prior convictions for driving while impaired and driving while [sic] license revoked under his birth date." J.A. 605. In response to the State's proffered reason, Kandies's trial counsel renewed a motion requesting access to the records relied upon by the State or, in the alternative, that the records pertaining to Mr. Hines be made part of the proceeding's record. The trial court denied this request and overruled Kandies's Batson challenge, noting that at the time that it peremptorily struck Mr. Hines, the State had (1) accepted another African American juror, who was then struck peremptorily by Kandies; (2) accepted a second African American juror, who was not peremptorily challenged by Kandies; and (3) accepted a third African American juror during the same proceeding that Mr. Hines was struck. Accordingly, the trial court found that Kandies failed to show that the State's proffered reason was pretextual.
Because I accord great deference to the trial court's determinations regarding purposeful discrimination, Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 365, 111 S.Ct. 1859, I cannot, on the record before me, conclude that Kandies's Batson challenge was improperly overruled by the trial court.
8. Mr. Wilson
In response to Kandies's Batson challenge, the State asserted that it struck Mr. Wilson because he "has a record of reckless driving, driving while impaired, four worthless checks, two [sic] injury to personal property, a simple assault, and assault by pointing a gun." J.A. 751. In response to the State's proffered race neutral reasons, Kandies's trial counsel renewed the motion made in response to the State's peremptory challenge to Mr. Hines, ie., requested access to the records relied upon by the State or that the records pertaining to Mr. Wilson be made part of the proceeding's record. The trial court denied this request on the same bases that it had previously done so and concluded, on the same grounds that it overruled Kandies's Batson challenge to the removal of Mr. Hines, that the State's proffered reasons were not pretextual. Accordingly, because the trial court's determination regarding purposeful discrimination is given great deference, Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 365, 111 S.Ct. 1859, I conclude that the trial court did not err by overruling Kandies's Batson challenge to the peremptory removal of Mr. Wilson.
9. Ms. Oliver
During the selection of alternate jurors, the State exercised a peremptory challenge to remove Ms. Oliver. In response, Kandies's trial counsel raised a Batson challenge. After the court found that Kandies had made a showing of a prima facie discrimination case, the State asserted that it struck Ms. Oliver because she was "having trouble hearing . and because she certainly didn't listen to [the court's] instructions about watching t.v. or listening to any radio broadcasts about [the] ease." J.A. 969. To rebut the State's assertion, Kandies's trial counsel noted that the State had accepted Caucasian American jurors who had also contravened the court's instructions about watching television or listening to radio broadcasts about the case.
While the disparate treatment of similarly situated prospective jurors of different races can be used to establish pretext, Miller-El v. Cockrell, 587 U.S. 322, 343-44, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003), Kandies's trial counsel, in challenging the removal of Ms. Oliver, did not point to jurors similarly situated to Ms. Oliver that the State accepted. Kandies's trial counsel only pointed to jurors accepted by the State that had contravened the court's instructions about watching television and listening to radio reports about the case whereas the State struck Ms. Oliver because she was (1) having trouble hearing and (2) failed to adhere to the court's instructions. Accordingly, I find that Kan-dies's disparate treatment argument fails and thus conclude that the trial court, whose determinations regarding purposeful discrimination merit great deference, Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 365, 111 S.Ct. 1859, did not err by overruling Kandies's Batson challenge to the peremptory removal of Ms. Oliver.
C.
In sum, while I have serious doubts regarding some of the "race neutral" reasons proffered by the State, I find that the state court did not unreasonably conclude that Kandies failed to make the requisite showing that the State's proffered reasons for peremptorily striking nine prospective African American jurors were pretextual.
V.
We hold that the state court was not unreasonable in concluding that Kandies's trial counsel, despite not retaining a mitigation expert or specifically inquiring about childhood sexual abuse, thoroughly investigated Kandies's background for mitigating evidence and thus did not render ineffective assistance during the penalty phase. We also hold that the North Carolina Supreme Court's conclusion that the trial court properly overruled Kandies's Batson challenges to the State's peremptory removal of nine prospective African American jurors was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Accordingly, the district court's denial of Kandies's habeas petition is
AFFIRMED.
. During this search, Kandies returned to the convenience store located near Ms. Craven's home and asked Wood whether she had seen Natalie. Although she had not seen Natalie, Wood did notice that Kandies had black garbage bags in the back of his truck.
. Kandies's trial counsel also called the following witnesses: (1) Jodie Griffen, Kandies's former landlord in Bath, Maine, who testified that Kandies "was a very considerate father . very understanding . [who] came home from work . [and] played with [his children] . took them for rides . was always there for them," J.A. 1039; (2) Ken Curtis, a driving instructor for one of Kandies's former employers, who testified that Kandies was able to complete a six week driving course in two weeks and adored his family, id. at 1045; (3) Samuel Hoover, a clerk at a local alcohol store, who testified that Kandies purchased a twelve pack of beer three to four times a week, id. at 1049; (4) Thomas L. Mclver, a detective for the Asheboro Police Department, who testified that a check of Kandies's criminal record only revealed a conviction for driving while impaired, id. at 1076-83; (5) Brian Kennedy, Kandies's childhood friend, who testified that he saw Kandies's step-father drunk and that Kandies was upset when he found out his step-father was not his biological father, id. at 1143-46; (6) Douglas Cattell, Jr., Kandies's childhood friend, who testified that Kandies was a "perfect" father and that he and Kandies drank beer and smoked marijuana together, id. 1147-52; and (7) John Gregory, Jr., Kandies's childhood friend, who testified that Kandies was a caring and concerned father. Id. at 1153-57.
. In addition to meeting with Kandies on three occasions, Dr. Glover conducted telephone interviews with three of Kandies's acquaintances: (1) Timothy Thompson, a childhood friend of Kandies, who indicated that he and Kandies consumed drugs and alcohol together until approximately 1980; (2) Samuel Hoover, who was employed at the convenience store where Kandies customarily purchased his alcohol; and (3) Linda Loflin, who was present at Ms. Craven's home on the night that Natalie disappeared and indicated that Kandies was intoxicated and angry at the time.
. The three statutory mitigating factors found by the jury were: (1) Kandies did not have a significant criminal history; (2) Kandies murdered Natalie while suffering from a mental or emotional disturbance; and (3) Kandies's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform to the requirements of the law was impaired.
. The eighteen nonstatutory mitigating factors found by the jury were: (1) Kandies expressed remorse when describing the events of April 20th to Ms. Craven on April 23rd; (2) Kan-dies expressed remorse when speaking with police on April 23rd; (3) Prior to being placed under arrest, Kandies contacted the Asheboro Police Department to inform it of the location of Natalie's body; (4) Prior to being placed under arrest, Kandies contacted the Asheboro Police Department to accept responsibility for Natalie's death; (5) Kandies voluntarily waived his right to have an attorney present when speaking with police on April 23rd; (6) Kandies voluntarily accepted responsibility for Natalie's death when speaking with police on April 23rd; (7) Kandies was a chronic and long term substance abuser; (8) Kandies suffered from acute substance abuse; (9) Kan-dies had a troubled childhood; (10) Natalie's murder was out of character for Kandies; (11) Kandies was led to believe that his stepfather was his biological father until the age of fourteen; (12) Kandies never had a positive role model; (13) Kandies suffers from a personality disorder; (14) Kandies comes from a dysfunctional family; (15) Kandies witnessed as a child the verbal and physical abuse of his mother; (16) Kandies's step-father is an alcoholic; (17) Kandies suffered from a history of depression; and (18) Kandies was reared in an unstable environment.
. In his briefs before this Court, Kandies has included affidavits from his ex-wife, Lisa Frankes, and military friend, Stephen Sexton, in support of his assertion that he was sexually abused as a child by his uncle. However, because these affidavits were not presented to the state court when it' adjudicated Kandies's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we, as a federal habeas court, may not consider them in reviewing Kandies's habeas petition. Wilson v. Moore, 178 F.3d 266, 272-73 (4th Cir.1999), cert, denied, 528 U.S. 880, 120 S.Ct. 191, 145 L.Ed.2d 160 (1999).
. Kandies also contends that he received ineffective assistance because his court-appointed attorney that was primarily responsible for discovering and developing mitigation evidence, Scott N. Dunn, had never tried a criminal jury trial prior to Kandies's capital case. While I believe the Randolph County Superior Court should have appointed an attorney experienced in capital cases, Mr. Dunn's lack of experience does not establish ipso facto that he was ineffective. When considering an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the attorney's actual performance is examined, rather than his or her experience, which is an indicator of the attorney's likely performance. In addition, I note that Mr. Dunn was not the lead counsel in Kandies's trial and thus I presume, given that it has not been alleged otherwise, that he was supervised by a more experienced attorney.
. While I recognize that the trauma of childhood sexual abuse can cause victims to repress their memory of such abuse, the fact that Kandies never informed his trial counsel that he was, or believed he was, sexually abused is important because the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that "what investigation decisions are reasonable depends critically" on "information supplied by the defendant." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052; cf. Barnes v. Thompson, 58 F.3d 971, 979-80 (4th Cir.l995)(stating that counsel "may rely.on the truthfulness of his client and those whom he interviews in deciding how to pursue his investigation"). This is especially true in the present case because nothing in Kandies's background could have - alerted his trial counsel to his alleged childhood sexual abuse.
. I also note that the jury knew, through Kandies's statements to police, that he never admitted to having raped Natalie. Thus, he never accepted responsibility or demonstrated remorse for the rape of Natalie.
. Similarly, the Supreme Court held in Georgia v. McCollum that the State may challenge a defendant's racially based use of peremptory challenges because "Olust as public confidence in criminal justice is undermined by a conviction in a trial where racial discrimination has occurred in jury selection, so is public confidence undermined where a defendant, assisted by racially discriminatory peremptory strikes, obtains an acquittal." 505 U.S. 42, 50, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992). Moreover, the Court noted that "[rjegardless of who invokes the discriminatory challenge . the juror is subjected to [the harms caused by] open and public racial discrimination." Id. at 49, 112 S.Ct. 2348.
. Originally, Batson's requirement that a defendant establish a prima facie case of discrimination also mandated that the defendant show that he or she was a member of a "cognizable racial group" and that the State exercised peremptory challenges against members of the defendant's racial group. 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. 1712. This requirement, however, was eliminated in Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 415-16, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991).
. An inference that a prospective juror has been peremptorily challenged because of his or her race can also be established through the State's questions and statements during voir dire. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. 1712.
. While the State's proffered reason need not be persuasive or even plausible, the State cannot rebut a defendant's prima facie case "merely by denying [it] had a discriminatory motive or 'affirm[ing][its] good faith in making individual selections.' " Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (quoting Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 632, 92 S.Ct. 1221, 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972)).
. Because a trial court's finding regarding purposeful discrimination will turn in large part on credibility determinations, it should be accorded great deference on review. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712. Thus, a trial court's finding regarding purposeful discrimination may not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 365, 111 S.Ct. 1859.
. Unlike with four of the other seven prospective African American jurors that it struck, the State did not cite criminal history or possibility of criminal history when explaining its reasons for striking Ms. Rawlin-son and Mr. McClure.