Opinion ID: 16329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Barnes’s Other Arguments

Text: Barnes’s additional arguments are heavily factual in nature. Barnes argues that his statements were not voluntary because he was coerced by the police. He points to the length of his interrogation, his lack of footwear, and the fact that he was prevented from sleeping for more than three hours at a time. The state court made factual determinations that these police actions were not coercive and therefore did not render the statements involuntary. These state court factual determinations are entitled to a presumption of correctness. 28 U.S.C.A. § 3 Furthermore, as noted by the district court, even had there been error in admitting the fourth, videotaped statement, such error would probably have been harmless. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310-11, 111 S. Ct. 1246, 1265-66, 113 L. Ed. 2d 302 (1991) (holding that the admission of an involuntary confession is subject to harmless error analysis). The fourth, videotaped statement is cumulative of the third statement. Therefore, had it been error to admit the fourth statement--which it was not--such error would probably have been harmless under the particular circumstances of this case. See United States v. Ramirez, 963 F.2d 693, 698 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 388 (1992); Boles v. Foltz, 816 F.2d 1132, 1135-36 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 108 S. Ct. 167 (1987). 18 2254(d)-(e). As the district court noted in its meticulous analysis of the state court proceedings, the state court record does not support Barnes’s claims that these police actions rendered his statements involuntary. D. Totality of the Circumstances and Fundamental Unfairness In light of our rulings on the previous issues, it is clear that under the totality of the circumstances, the admission of Barnes’s third and fourth statements was not fundamentally unfair and did not violate Barnes’s constitutional rights.