Opinion ID: 796039
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: claims attacking the aggravated-murder conviction

Text: 93 The district court denied each of Joseph's claims attacking the underlying aggravated-murder conviction. Joseph pursues four of these claims on appeal, arguing that (1) the trial court admitted statements obtained by the police in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); (2) the refusal to grant a change of venue on the grounds of pretrial publicity resulted in the denial of Joseph's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury; (3) the prosecution suppressed material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); and (4) the prosecution made numerous improper statements amounting to misconduct in violation of the Due Process Clause. For the reasons below, we affirm the district court's denial of these claims.
94 Before the state courts, Joseph challenged the admission of four statements on Miranda grounds. The Ohio Court of Appeals, which was the last state court to issue a reasoned opinion on this claim, gave the following account of the circumstances surrounding these statements: 95 At approximately 5:00 a.m. on June 27, 1990, the morning Ryan was discovered missing, three deputy sheriffs went to [Joseph's] residence. [Joseph] and Bulerin came to the door, where [Joseph] was questioned. [Joseph] disclaimed any knowledge of the disappearance. [Joseph] was then transported to the sheriff's office by one of the deputies. At the sheriff's office [Joseph] waited for the arrival of Detective Cheney. He was read his Miranda rights and signed a waiver of rights form prior to any questioning. This interview lasted approximately twenty minutes, after which time [Joseph] left. Later that morning he was again taken to the sheriff's office by a deputy who picked him up from work. [Joseph] voluntarily agreed to go with the deputy to the sheriff's office where he was questioned a third time at approximately 10:15 a.m. [Joseph] was not under arrest and no Miranda warnings were given. Detective Ketchum, the deputy who interviewed [Joseph] this time, testified [Joseph's] statements were voluntary and he was free to leave at any time. A fourth interview with [Joseph] was conducted after his arrest on the evening of July 4, 1990. He was informed of his rights which he chose to waive, and consented to the interview. 96 Joseph I, 1993 WL 531858, at  (emphasis added). Before this court, Joseph challenges only the third statement, the facts of which are emphasized in the quoted passage. 97 Miranda held that certain warnings must be given before a suspect's statement made during custodial interrogation could be admitted in evidence. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 431-32, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000). There is no doubt that Joseph was interrogated by Detective Ketchum for purposes of Miranda. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-01, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980) ([T]he Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. That is to say, the term `interrogation' under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. (footnote omitted)). And it is undisputed that Joseph was not given Miranda warnings before being interrogated. The critical question in the instant case, then, is whether Joseph was in custody, which under clearly established Supreme Court precedent depends on whether there [was] a `formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement' of the degree associated with a formal arrest. California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977)); see also Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112, 116 S.Ct. 457, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995) ([W]ould a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave[?]). The state court answered this question in the negative. 98 Joseph first argues that the state court's decision was contrary to Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984), and Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994). Under these cases, along with Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976), the initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned. Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 323, 114 S.Ct. 1526 (explaining that Beckwith and Berkemer make this proposition clear). 19 According to Joseph, the state court's decision was contrary to these precedents because the court applied a subjective test for custody (based on Detective Ketchum's views) rather than the objective test mandated by the Supreme Court. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 405, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (A state-court decision will certainly be contrary to our clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our cases.). Yet the state court explicitly relied on Berkemer and stated the governing standard in objective terms: the Supreme Court held the relevant inquiry regarding a custodial interrogation to be how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood his situation.  Joseph I, 1993 WL 531858, at  (emphasis added). Furthermore, the court principally discussed objective facts in applying the custody standard to the facts. See id. at -. Finally, to the extent that some of the facts mentioned by the court arguably indicate the subjective views of the officers, it appears that they were either simply given as background or can also be read as indicating the subjective impressions of the officers that were made known to Joseph. Thus, we conclude that the state court's decision was not contrary to clearly established federal law. 99 Joseph next argues that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law. In Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004), the Supreme Court recently reviewed a state court's application of the Miranda custody test under AEDPA's unreasonable-application prong, so we naturally begin our analysis there. The Court explained that whether a state court's application of clearly established federal law is unreasonable is a context-sensitive inquiry: 100 [T]he range of reasonable judgment can depend in part on the nature of the relevant rule. If a legal rule is specific, the range may be narrow. Applications of the rule may be plainly correct or incorrect. Other rules are more general, and their meaning must emerge in application over the course of time. Applying a general standard to a specific case can demand a substantial element of judgment. As a result, evaluating whether a rule application was unreasonable requires considering the rule's specificity. The more general the rule, the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomes in case by case determinations. 101 Id. at 664, 124 S.Ct. 2140. Within this framework, the Court gave the state court considerable leeway because Miranda's custody test is general. Id. at 665, 124 S.Ct. 2140. The Court noted that certain facts weigh[ed] against a finding that [the defendant] was in custody while [o]ther facts point[ed] in the opposite direction. Id. at 664-65, 124 S.Ct. 2140. Given [t]hese differing indications, the Court concluded that the state court's application of [clearly established federal] law fit[] within the matrix of [the Court's] prior decisions and therefore was reasonable. Id. at 665, 124 S.Ct. 2140. 102 Here, too, there are differing indications of whether Joseph was in custody. On the one hand, Joseph was transported from his workplace to the sheriff's office by a deputy; Joseph had already been questioned by the police twice earlier that day; and Detective Ketchum never told Joseph that he was free to leave. On the other hand, Joseph went voluntarily with the deputy to the sheriff's office; Detective Ketchum never told Joseph that he was not free to leave; and the interview with Detective Ketchum was brief, lasting only twenty-five minutes. Were we reviewing Joseph's Miranda claim de novo, this might very well be a close case. That is not, however, the posture of this appeal. What the Supreme Court said in Yarborough is applicable here: 103 We cannot grant relief under AEDPA by conducting our own independent inquiry into whether the state court was correct as a de novo matter. [A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the state-court decision applied [the law] incorrectly. Relief is available under § 2254(d)(1) only if the state court's decision is objectively unreasonable. Under that standard, relief cannot be granted. 104 541 U.S. at 665-66, 124 S.Ct. 2140 (alterations in original) (citations omitted) (quoting Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24-25, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002)).
105 Joseph argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to be tried by an impartial jury because the jury in his case was infected by pretrial publicity surrounding the murder. We have explained that there is clearly established Supreme Court precedent distinguishing between cases involving presumed prejudice—when the `setting of the trial [is] inherently prejudicial,'—and actual prejudice—when review of both the jury voir dire testimony and the extent and nature of the media coverage indicates `a fair trial [was] impossible.'  Nevers v. Killinger, 169 F.3d 352, 364 (6th Cir.1999) (alterations in original) (citations omitted) (quoting Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 798, 803, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975)), abrogated on other grounds by Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940, 942-43 (6th Cir.2000). The Ohio Court of Appeals, which was the last state court to issue a reasoned opinion on this issue, rejected both types of claims, principally on the basis of the jurors' responses during voir dire and the trial court's instructions to the jury. See Joseph I, 1993 WL 531858, at -. 106 Joseph makes a very narrow argument to this court, basically contending that the trial court failed to perform a searching voir dire  and did not determin[e] the specific influences on the jurors. Petitioner-Appellant First Br. at 83, 96; see also id. at 85 n. 32, 94-95. In Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 111 S.Ct. 1899, 114 L.Ed.2d 493 (1991), the Supreme Court rejected the similar argument that a trial court must ask questions regarding the content of the news reports (i.e., what Joseph calls the specific influences) to which potential jurors may have been exposed. Id. at 424-25, 111 S.Ct. 1899. The Court explained that 8 of the 12 jurors who sat answered that they had read or heard something about the case, but none of those 8 indicated that he had formed an opinion as to guilt, or that the information would affect his ability to judge petitioner solely on the basis of the evidence presented at trial. Id. at 428, 111 S.Ct. 1899. In the instant case, all twelve jurors had heard about the case, but each stated that he or she had formed no opinion on the case, could disregard the media accounts, and could decide the case based solely on the evidence presented at trial. Given that Mu'Min forecloses Joseph's argument, we cannot conclude that the state court's decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

107 The Ohio Supreme Court rejected Joseph's Brady claim, which was principally based on the delayed disclosure of a grant of immunity that had been given to William Forest, a key witness for the prosecution. Joseph II, 653 N.E.2d at 292-93. If Joseph were now bringing the same Brady claim, i.e., one premised on the same suppressed evidence, then it would be a claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings, and we would review the state court's decision only for whether it 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). However, Joseph's current Brady claim is not the same as the one he brought before the state courts: he now relies on a different mix of suppressed evidence that includes some items discovered only during federal habeas proceedings. Thus, Joseph argues, his Brady claim was not adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings, and AEDPA's strict standard of review does not apply. We agree. In Williams v. Coyle, 260 F.3d 684 (6th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 947, 122 S.Ct. 2635, 153 L.Ed.2d 816 (2002), we reviewed a Brady claim based on evidence disclosed during federal habeas proceedings under pre-AEDPA standards because no state court reviewed the merits of that claim. Id. at 706; see also Monroe v. Angelone, 323 F.3d 286, 297-98 (4th Cir.2003) (collecting cases); Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649, 653, 124 S.Ct. 2736, 159 L.Ed.2d 683 (2004) (noting that [w]here new evidence is admitted, some Courts of Appeals have conducted de novo review on the theory that there is no relevant state-court determination to which one could defer and [a]ssuming . . . that this analysis is correct and that it applies where . . . the evidence does not support a new claim but merely buttresses a previously rejected one). Because AEDPA's standard of review does not apply here, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error, while whether a Brady violation occurred is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. Williams, 260 F.3d at 706.
108 The Supreme Court recently provided the following concise summary of Brady doctrine: 109 In Brady, this Court held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. 373 U.S., at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. We have since held that the duty to disclose such evidence is applicable even though there has been no request by the accused, United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), and that the duty encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). Such evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id., at 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375; see also Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433-434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). Moreover, the rule encompasses evidence known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor. Id., at 438, 115 S.Ct. 1555. In order to comply with Brady, therefore, the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in this case, including the police. Kyles, 514 U.S., at 437, 115 S.Ct. 1555. 110 Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280-81, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999). The Court also distilled the three components of a true Brady violation: The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued. Id. at 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936. 111
112 We first address whether the evidence on which Joseph relies was favorable to him: 20 113 1. Forest's immunity agreement. This item, which was disclosed belatedly at trial, was obviously favorable to Joseph, as it could have been used to impeach Forest. As Seventh Circuit has explained: 114 The prosecution's giving a witness benefits—leniency, cash, or anything else— can be used by a cross-examining defense counsel to undermine the witness in two. . . distinct ways. The first and most common is by showing that the benefits were given in return for the witness's providing testimony that would help the prosecution. He might have told the prosecutor what he would testify to if called and the prosecutor might have explicitly agreed to give him specified benefits if he testified consistently with his proffer. Or there might have been a tacit understanding that if his testimony was helpful to the prosecution, the state would give him a break on some pending criminal charge. . . . Express or tacit, either way there would be an agreement, it would be usable for impeachment, and it would have to be disclosed to the defense. 115 Wisehart v. Davis, 408 F.3d 321, 323-24 (7th Cir.2005) (citations omitted), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1617, 164 L.Ed.2d 353 (2006). 116 2. Transcript of Ketchum's post-arrest interview of Forest on July 4, 1990. In this interview, which was disclosed belatedly at trial, Forest stated that on the morning after the murder, Bulerin bought tires for a client's car. At trial, Forest testified that on the morning after the murder, Bulerin bought and changed the tires on Forest's car. Although these two statements are not directly contradictory, they are somewhat inconsistent. Accordingly, the evidence could have been used to impeach Forest and is favorable to Joseph. 117 3. Transcript of Dailey and Van Horn's interview of Forest on July 7, 1990. In this interview, which was disclosed belatedly at trial, Forest was asked, When is the last time you're sure that knife was in your car? In response, Forest said: Um . . . I've really never use—it usually rattles on my car, as I'm driving down the road. I haven't driven my car too much lately—but I know I've not seen it since . . . at least maybe—before . . . they claimed it was lost. I've just never really paid attention to it—plus I never have my car to drive it. 118 21 J.A. at 8340 (omissions in original). (The phrase before . . . they claimed it was lost refers to Bulerin telling Forest on Thursday, June 28, 1990 or Friday, June 29, 1990 that the knife was lost. 21 J.A. at 8339-40.) The import of this statement is that Forest could not precisely pinpoint when he last saw the knife in his car. Yet at trial, Forest definitively testified that the knife was in the car on June 26, 1990. Thus, the evidence could have been used to impeach Forest and is favorable to Joseph. 119 4. Notes of Cheney's interview of Forest on June 28, 1990. On its face, the single page of interview notes, which was discovered during the federal habeas proceedings below, does not appear to contain any favorable information. Nor does Joseph explain how these notes are favorable to him. 120 5. Transcript of Van Horn's interview of Thad Randall Staley on June 27, 1990. In this interview, which was discovered during the federal habeas proceedings below, Staley (who knows Forest) stated that he saw a car that looked like Forest's being driven on Thayer Road—Wireman's residence was on Thayer Road—at about 1:50 AM on the night/morning of the murder. According to Staley, there were two or more people in the car, and the driver kind of looked like Forest. 21 J.A. at 8365. Although this evidence does not exculpate Joseph (he might have been one of the other people in the car), it suggests that Forest was involved in the murder by placing him in the car seen at the scene of the murder at approximately the right time. Thus, it could have been used to impeach Forest and is favorable to Joseph. 121 6. Notes of a statement made by Tony Newland on June 30, 1990. In this statement, which was discovered during the federal habeas proceedings below, Newland asserted that he saw Forest at a car wash cleaning a car that matched the description . . . `too' thoroughly. 21 J.A. at 8361. Whether this evidence is favorable to Joseph is a close question. On one hand, it does not exculpate Joseph and it is quite vague. On the other hand, it suggests that Forest was covering up evidence and therefore was involved in the murder. On balance, it probably could have been used to impeach Forest. 122
123 There is no dispute as to the fact that these items were suppressed, so we proceed directly to the issue of materiality/prejudice. We conduct this inquiry mindful of the Supreme Court's admonition that suppressed evidence [must be] considered collectively, not item by item, when determining materiality/prejudice. 21 Kyles, 514 U.S. at 436, 115 S.Ct. 1555; accord, e.g., Castleberry v. Brigano, 349 F.3d 286, 291 (6th Cir.2003). All five items of suppressed evidence that were favorable to Joseph were favorable in the sense that they would have impeached Forest. And viewed collectively, these items would have strongly impeached Forest, who was clearly a crucial trial witness for the prosecution. 22 We have little trouble assuming that, if all five items had been completely undisclosed, they certainly would have been material/prejudicial under Brady. 124 As we have already indicated, however, the three most strongly impeaching items—the immunity agreement, the statement about Bulerin changing the tires, and the statement about the knife—were belatedly disclosed during trial rather than completely undisclosed. Thus, we must consider as part of the collective materiality inquiry the extent to which the delay prejudiced Joseph. E.g., United States v. Bencs, 28 F.3d 555, 560-61 (6th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1117, 115 S.Ct. 915, 130 L.Ed.2d 796 (1995). Here, the trial court implemented several measures to remedy the delay. The court gave the defense several days to review the belatedly disclosed documents and to conduct a deposition of Forest. The court also gave the defense the opportunity to re-call Forest at trial. The defense declined to do so, but there is no suggestion that this decision was the result of insufficient time to prepare; if the defense needed more time, it could have asked for a continuance. See, e.g., United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373, 1381 (6th Cir.) ([C]ounsel for [the defendant] made no request for . . . a continuance. In such a circumstance, we conclude that the timing of the disclosure did not prejudice [the defendant].), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1021, 105 S.Ct. 440, 83 L.Ed.2d 366 (1984); United States v. Osorio, 929 F.2d 753, 758 (1st Cir.1991) (Generally, we have viewed the failure to ask for a continuance as an indication that defense counsel was himself satisfied he had sufficient opportunity to use the evidence advantageously.). In fact, it appears that the defense declined to re-call Forest for strategic reasons, 10 J.A. at 3795 (Trial Tr. at 1871), so that choice cannot now be used to attempt to magnify the prejudice of the delay. See United States v. Davis, 306 F.3d 398, 421 (6th Cir.2002) (holding that there was no prejudice from a delayed disclosure where the [d]efendant was given every opportunity to review the [newly disclosed] tapes and to recall [the witness] if necessary, but he refused to do so), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1208, 123 S.Ct. 1290, 154 L.Ed.2d 1054 (2003). Furthermore, the defense emphasized in its closing argument that Forest was given immunity and released from jail for his testimony and that his testimony therefore should be viewed very cautiously. 11 J.A. at 3956 (Trial Tr. at 2025). Finally, the trial court instructed the jury at the close of trial: If you find that immunity has been granted to any witness, the credibility of such testimony must be examined with greater scrutiny than testimony of an ordinary witness. 11 J.A. at 3988-89 (Trial Tr. at 2057-58). These remedial measures reduced the potential materiality/prejudice of the delay in disclosing these three pieces of evidence. 23 125 Finally, we add the two completely undisclosed items to the mix. These items were only weakly impeaching, and they would have added little to the impeachment of Forest if Joseph had taken advantage of the ample opportunity to use the belatedly disclosed evidence. Given that Joseph could have (but declined) to make use of the items that would have strongly impeached Forest after they were belatedly disclosed and that the completely undisclosed items would have only weakly impeached Forest, we cannot conclude that there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 433-34, 115 S.Ct. 1555.
126 Joseph's final claim is that the prosecution violated his right to due process by committing misconduct. The Ohio Court of Appeals, which was the last state court to issue a reasoned opinion on the issue, rejected Joseph's various sub-claims because the prosecution's conduct was either not improper or did not prejudice Joseph. Joseph I, 1993 WL 531858, at  16- 18. We review Joseph's claim using the following approach: 127 On habeas review, claims of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed deferentially. To be cognizable, the misconduct must have `so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.' Even if the prosecutor's conduct was improper or even universally condemned, we can provide relief only if the statements were so flagrant as to render the entire trial fundamentally unfair. Once we find that a statement is improper, four factors are considered in determining whether the impropriety is flagrant: (1) the likelihood that the remarks would mislead the jury or prejudice the accused, (2) whether the remarks were isolated or extensive, (3) whether the remarks were deliberately or accidentally presented to the jury, and (4) whether other evidence against the defendant was substantial. 128 Bowling v. Parker, 344 F.3d 487, 512-13 (6th Cir.2003) (citations omitted) (quoting Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986)), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 842, 125 S.Ct. 281, 160 L.Ed.2d 68 (2004). We discuss the propriety of each complained-of statement before considering the effect of improper ones (if any) collectively. 129 Joseph first argues that the prosecution commented on Joseph's failure to take the stand when it said, [Joseph's counsel] would have you infer that there was no kidnapping. Well, you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, heard all of the evidence. You heard each and every thing that would go to show kidnapping. Uncontroverted. Uncontroverted from that witness stand. 11 J.A. at 3971 (Trial Tr. at 2040). The law is clear that the prosecution cannot comment on a defendant's decision not to testify at trial. Bowling, 344 F.3d at 514 (citing Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965)). However, `[g]eneral references to evidence as uncontradicted, while not recommended, may not reflect on the defendant's failure to testify where witnesses other than the defendant could have contradicted the evidence.' Byrd v. Collins, 209 F.3d 486, 534 (6th Cir.2000) (quoting Raper v. Mintzes, 706 F.2d 161, 164 (6th Cir.1983)), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1082, 121 S.Ct. 786, 148 L.Ed.2d 682 (2001). Moreover, the comment was neither flagrant nor repeated. Finally, the trial court instructed the jury about Joseph's right not to testify. 130 Joseph next contends that the prosecution shifted the burden of proof to him when it asked, What evidence do we have, ladies and gentlemen, that this defendant didn't do it? 11 J.A. at 3977 (Trial Tr. at 2046). [I]t [is] improper for the prosecutor to suggest that the defendant ha[s] the burden of proof or any obligation to produce evidence to prove his innocence. United States v. Clark, 982 F.2d 965, 968-69 (6th Cir.1993). However, the trial court immediately sustained an objection to the question and instructed the jury to disregard it. The court also instructed the jury about the state's burden of proof. 131 Joseph also claims that the prosecution improperly expressed personal opinions. Specifically, the prosecution vouched for Forest's credibility and otherwise repeatedly prefaced statements with I believe or I think. These comments certainly were improper, see United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 18-19, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985); Bates v. Bell, 402 F.3d 635, 644 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 163, 163 L.Ed.2d 150 (2005), but they did not rise to the level of a due-process violation. With respect to the vouching for Forest, the prosecution was arguably simply noting the consistency between his testimony and other evidence, and in any event the vouching was isolated. With respect to the repeated use of I believe and I think, it does not appear that the prosecution was acting intentionally in an attempt to influence the jury; instead, the phrases appeared to be the result of a nervous habit. Furthermore, the trial judge repeatedly chastised the prosecution for its locution and instructed the jury to disregard expressions of personal belief. 132 Joseph next asserts that the prosecution elicited testimony from two witnesses that was inconsistent with prior statements they had made prior to trial: Forest testified definitively at trial that the knife was in the car on June 26, 1990, even though he had previously given a statement that he could not precisely pinpoint when he last saw the knife in his car; and the coroner testified at trial that she could not definitively say whether the cuts on Young's neck were inflicted pre- or postmortem, even though she had previously given a statement that the cuts were probably inflicted postmortem. Misrepresenting facts in evidence can amount to substantial error because doing so `may profoundly impress a jury and may have a significant impact on the jury's deliberations.' Washington v. Hofbauer, 228 F.3d 689, 700 (6th Cir.2000) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 646, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974)). For similar reasons, asserting facts that were never admitted into evidence may mislead a jury in a prejudicial way. Id. (citing Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 84, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935)). The difficulty with Joseph's argument is that neither of these claims apply. The prosecution did not assert[] facts that were never admitted into evidence: it elicited trial testimony from witnesses, so the facts in their testimony were admitted into evidence. Nor did the prosecution [m]isrepresent[] facts in evidence: after eliciting trial testimony from witnesses, it simply relied on those facts in its arguments. Joseph's real quarrel is that the prosecution possessed but did not disclose prior statements that were inconsistent with the testimony elicited at trial. But that claim sounds in a different type of prosecutorial misconduct: Brady doctrine. 24 133 Finally, Joseph complains that when mitigation witnesses testified about Joseph's childhood and learning disability, on a few occasions the prosecution cross-examined them by asking what those topics had to do with the kidnapping. Joseph argues that in doing so, the prosecution improperly suggested that the jury could not consider certain mitigating evidence. Although it is unconstitutional for a prosecutor's comments . . . to `constrain the manner in which the jury was able to give effect' to mitigating evidence, DePew v. Anderson, 311 F.3d 742, 748 (6th Cir.2002) (quoting Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U.S. 269, 277, 118 S.Ct. 757, 139 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998)), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 888, 124 S.Ct. 270, 157 L.Ed.2d 160 (2003), the prosecution's questions here did not rise to that level. In any event, the trial court gave the jury a proper instruction on the consideration of mitigating evidence. 134 It is clear that the prosecution made some improper statements and other questionable ones. Viewed collectively, they very well may have violated due process as a de novo matter. However, because some comments were isolated, inadvertent, or not flagrant, and because the trial court consistently gave curative instructions, we conclude that the state court's rejection of Joseph's prosecutorial misconduct claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.