Court Opinion

ID: 9497421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:51:17.301026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:11.579125
License: Public Domain

TRAXLER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Jeffrey Clayton Kandies was found guilty by a jury of the first-degree murder and rape of four-year-old Natalie Lynn Osborne. In accordance with the jury’s unanimous recommendation, Kandies was sentenced to death. His direct appeals were unsuccessful as was his bid for collateral relief in North Carolina state court. Kandies subsequently filed this federal action for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2004). The district court denied his application for relief, and Kandies appeals that denial to this court. For the reasons set forth below, I would also affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief, and thus I concur in the result reached by Judge Gregory’s opinion. I write separately, however, because my application of § 2254 to the state court’s disposition of Kandies’ claims differs substantially from that of my colleague Judge Gregory.
I.
The pertinent facts are recounted thoroughly in the opinion from the North Carolina Supreme Court issued on direct review:
Patricia Craven lived in Asheboro with her four-year-old daughter, Natalie, and her sons, Zachary and Jeremy, ages six and one, respectively. [Kandies] was Craven’s fiancé and Jeremy’s father. Although [Kandies] had a separate residence approximately ten miles away in Randleman, he often stayed with Craven at her apartment in Asheboro.
On Easter Monday, 20 April 1992, [Kandies] and Craven disciplined Natalie for eating Zachary’s Easter candy by requiring her to stay in her room for the remainder of the day. Craven saw Natalie periodically throughout the day, but last saw her alive between 4:00 and 4:30 p.m. Around 4:45 p.m., [Kandies] left the apartment to go to the grocery store. He did not return until 7:30 that evening. He attributed his tardiness to helping an elderly couple who had mechanical problems with their Winnebago. *482Once home, [Kandies] began fixing a pizza for the children. When it was ready, he told Zachary to call for Natalie. When Zachary did not find Natalie in her bedroom, [Kandies] and Craven began looking for her. One neighbor told Craven that he had noticed Natalie outside playing sometime that afternoon, but no one recalled seeing her since that time. After a while, [Kandies] called the Asheboro Police Department to report Natalie missing. An extensive search for her was conducted that night, but without success.
Earlier that evening, around 7:00 p.m., [Kandies] entered ... a small convenience store located about one-half mile from the Craven residence. Carolyn Wood, the clerk, testified that at that time, [Kandies] was complaining about his hand hurting. He told Wood that he had gotten into a fight with his brother. Wood noticed that the hand was beginning to swell and suggested that [Kan-dies] let a medical technician who happened to be in the store look at his hand to see if it was broken. [Kandies] declined and immediately left the store.
Later that evening, close to midnight, [Kandies] returned to the store to ask if Wood had seen Natalie ... and told her to call the police if she saw the little girl. At the time, Wood observed black garbage bags in the back of [Kandies’] truck.
On Tuesday, 21 April 1992, [Kandies] agreed to accompany officers to his residence in Randleman to look for Natalie. The police surmised that perhaps Craven and [Kandies] had hidden Natalie at the Randleman residence because Craven had been in a custody dispute over Natalie with her former husband, Ed Osborne. The police looked through the house but did not find Natalie.
On Wednesday, 22 April, Craven and [Kandies] went to the Asheboro Police Department for questioning.... Upon [Kandies’] return to the apartment [having been interrogated much longer than Craven], Craven asked him if he knew anything about ... Natalie. [Kandies] responded by telling Craven that he had hit Natalie with his truck when he was leaving to go to the grocery store.... [Kandies] said he panicked because he had been drinking. He picked Natalie up and took her to the house in Randle-man to clean her off and see how badly she was hurt. During the drive to Ran-dleman, [Kandies] said that Natalie was making gurgling noises and that her head did not look right. After trying to clean her up, [Kandies] concealed Natalie and her clothes in a garbage bag and put the bag in a bedroom closet. [Kan-dies] then got in his truck and took his time returning to Asheboro.
Craven called the police immediately.... [Kandies] gave details as to the location of Natalie’s body and signed consent to search forms for the Randle-man house.
The police searched the Randleman residence and found Natalie’s body in a plastic bag, buried under a pile of clothes and carpet pieces in a bedroom closet. A bloody playsuit and a bloody pair of panties, both turned inside out, were also found in the bag....
Dr. Thomas Clark, a forensic pathologist, performed an autopsy ... [and] found two lacerations to the top of the head which he characterized as blunt-force injuries. He also found lacerations on the right side of the head and abrasions on the left side of the head and on the front of the neck; there was evidence the skull had been fractured. There were multiple bruises on the back and both sides; the bruises were small and rounded and had a distribution and *483shape suggestive of an adult hand. Clark also found injuries to the pelvic region. There were bruises on both sides of the vagina, which was full of blood. The opening of the vagina was patulous, and there was a laceration a half-inch wide and an inch long on the back wall of the vagina. Clark opined that these injuries were indicative of sexual assault and that they had occurred at or about the time of death.
.... [Kandies] denied [in a statement to police] doing anything sexual to Natalie. He remembered taking Natalie to his house, putting her in the bathtub, and taking off her clothes to see how badly she was hurt. At that time Natalie was bleeding extensively but appeared to be alive and moving. [Kan-dies] stated that he could hot handle the situation and may have strangled Natalie.
State v. Kandies, 342 N.C. 419, 467 S.E.2d 67, 73-74 (1996). The jury found Kandies guilty of first-degree murder on two bases: (1) felony murder and (2) premeditation and deliberation. The jury also found Kandies guilty of first-degree rape.
Following the sentencing proceedings, the jury found two aggravating circumstances: (1) that Kandies committed the murder during the commission of first degree rape, and (2) that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. Kandies offered five statutory mitigating factors, of which the jury found three. Additionally, the jury found eighteen of twenty-eight nonstatutory mitigating factors. The jury unanimously recommended that Kandies be sentenced to death, and the trial court sentenced Kandies accordingly.
On direct appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court, Kandies raised several issues, including the claim that the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to strike prospective jurors on the basis of race in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and its progeny. The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected Kandies’ Batson claim, holding that “the State’s dismissal of each of these jurors was based on race-neutral reasons which were clearly supported by their individual responses during voir dire.” Kandies, 467 S.E.2d.at 76. The United States Supreme Court denied Kandies’ petition for a writ of cer-tiorari on the Batson claim as well as all other claims raised on direct appeal. See Kandies v. North Carolina, 519 U.S. 894, 117 S.Ct. 237, 136 L.Ed.2d 167 (1996).
Kandies next filed a motion for appropriate relief (“MAR”) in North Carolina Superior Court, alleging, inter alia, that counsel was ineffective for failing to discover that he was sexually abused at an early age. The state MAR court denied relief on this claim. On remand for reconsideration by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the state MAR court affirmed its earlier order, and the supreme court subsequently denied Kandies’ petition for a writ of certiorari. See State v. Kandies, 350 N.C. 843, 539 S.E.2d 640 (1999).
• Finally, Kandies applied for habeas 'relief in district court pursuant to, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. He raised numerous claims, each of which was denied by the district court. See Kandies v. Lee, 252 F.Supp.2d 252 (M.D.N.C.2003). We issued a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253 (West Supp.2004) for only two of these claims: (1) that the prosecution violated Batson by peremptorily striking prospective jurors based' on race and that the North Carolina Supreme Court on direct review unreasonably rejected the Batson claim; and (2) that the MAR court unreasonably rejected Kandies’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which was based on the attorneys’ failure to discover *484Kandies’ background of sexual abuse for use as a mitigator during the sentencing phase.
For the reasons suggested in my analysis below, I concur with Judge Gregory that Kandies is not entitled to habeas relief, although I would apply the standard of review prescribed by Congress in § 2254 differently.
II.
Because Kandies’ federal claims have been adjudicated on the merits by the North Carolina state court, we are constrained in our review by the standards set forth in § 2254(d). Under this provision, a federal habeas court is precluded from granting habeas relief unless it concludes that the state court’s adjudication of a claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” 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.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).
A state court decision is “contrary to ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(1), “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by th[e] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than th[e] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts,” Williams, 529 U.S. at 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495. A state court decision “involve[s] an unreasonable application of[ ] clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(1), if the state court decision “identifies the correct governing legal principle from th[e] Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case,” Williams, 529 U.S. at 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495. An objectively “unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect or erroneous application of federal law.” Id. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495. “[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable.” Id. at 411., 120 S.Ct. 1495
III.
I begin with Kandies’ claim that his defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for inadequately investigating his background and discovering that he had been sexually molested as a child, and for failing to present such evidence as mitigating during the penalty phase of his trial.
A.
The Sixth Amendment requires that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence,” U.S. Const. amend. VI, and that such assistance be effective, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In order to establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Kandies was required to establish (1) that his “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” measured by the “prevailing professional norms,” id. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, and (2) “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional eiTors, the result of the proceeding would have been different,” id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the convic*485tion or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.” Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
B.
During his trial, Kandies was represented by two court-appointed attorneys, Mr. Clark Bell, who was appointed as lead counsel, and Mr. Scott Dunn, who was appointed to assist Mr. Bell as second-chair counsel. In his MAE before the state court, Kandies asserted that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because (1) Mr. Dunn did not meet the minimum qualifications required by the rules for appointment of counsel for indigent defendants; and (2) Mr. Dunn’s mitigation investigation was inadequate because he failed to discover that Kandies had been sexually molested as a young child. In support of his ineffectiveness claim, Kan-dies submitted affidavits completed by Mr. Dunn, his mother, and himself.
According to Kandies’ affidavit, he was the victim of sexual molestation by his uncle, Ronald Kandies, when he was six years old. Kandies stated that:.
[t]hese 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 Joes 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. Kandies’ mother had no knowledge of Kandies’ sexual molestation by his uncle. Upon learning of Kandies’ claim, she could state only that she had been “somewhat curious as to why [Kandies’ uncle] always wanted to baby-sit for [her] son” and why he “was always buying gifts for [Kandies]” when he was six years old. J.A. 1375. She also noted that Kandies wet the bed until he was tén or eleven years old and was reluctant to let her assist him with dressing and undressing.
Mr. Dunn also submitted an affidavit. According to Mr. Dunn, he “served as court-appointed second chair counsel” to Mr. Bell, and his “primary responsibility was preparation of the mitigation phase of the trial.” J.A. 1373-74. Mr. Dunn, during the course of his preparations,
had numerous interviews with Mr. Kan-dies, members of his family, friends and mental health professionals regarding possible items in Mr. Kandies’ background that could be presented as mitigating factors. During the course of these discussionsf,] the subject of child sexual abuse which Mr. Kandies may have suffered was never raised, and [he] never investigated this area as, a possible mitigating factor.
J.A. 1374. For his part, Kandies confirms that “[d]uring the course of preparing for trial,” he “met with Mr. Dunn and Mr. Bell on various occasions,” but avers that “[a]t no time during the investigation and trial preparation stage of [his] case was [he] ever questioned by [his] áttorneys or anybody acting on their behalf if [he] had been the victim of childhood sexual abuse or' any other crime.” Kandies states that “[h]ad [he] been asked [he] would have told of [his] molestation by [his] uncle ... when [he] was six years old.” J.A. 1371.
The state MAR court rejected Kandies’ claim that his legal representation was deficient based upon his claim that Mr. Dunn did not meet the minimum qualifications required by the rules for appointment of counsel for indigent defendants. The court noted that Kandies was represented *486by two competent trial counsel (Mr. Bell and Mr. Dunn) and that Mr. Dunn’s limited experience did not result in a performance that fell below the applicable standards. Additionally, the court noted that, even if it were to assume that Mr. Dunn’s appointment was contrary to the state bar rules concerning appointment of counsel in capital cases, Kandies failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced in his defense as a result.
The MAR court also rejected Kandies’ claim that his trial attorneys’ performance was objectively unreasonable because they failed to discover evidence of sexual molestation. The court noted that the subject of child sexual abuse now claimed by Kandies was never raised by Kandies or any of the other numerous witnesses interviewed by his attorneys in preparation for the mitigation case, and that the trial attorneys were diligent and thorough in the presentation of the mitigation case, as evidenced by the number and nature of the defense witnesses they were able to bring to trial.1 The state court also concluded that trial counsels’ failure to specifically ask Kandies whether he had been the victim of childhood sexual abuse, in the absence of any indication or suspicion that he had been, “was not per se ineffective assistance of counsel, and, considering all circumstances, that trial counsel’s performance was not objectively unreasonable.” J.A. 1383. Additionally, the court concluded that Kan-dies failed to “demonstrate the existence of a reasonable probability that the outcome of the sentencing phase of the trial would have been different had trial counsel” discovered and presented his claims of childhood sexual abuse. J.A. 1383.
c.
I begin with the state court’s determination that Kandies failed to demonstrate that his “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” as measured by the “prevailing professional norms.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
In preparation for the mitigation phase of the case, Kandies’ attorneys conducted numerous interviews with Kandies, members of Kandies’ family, and several of Kandies’ childhood and current Mends in order to prepare a family and social history. In addition, the attorneys enlisted the support of two mental health professionals regarding possible items in Kandies’ background that could be presented as mitigating factors. As a result of these efforts, Kandies’ attorneys presented the testimony of eight lay witnesses and two expert witnesses during the sentencing phase, developing a strategy of mitigation that included, among other things, evidence of Kandies’ difficult childhood and the early onset and progressively pathological nature of Kandies’ substance abuse and dependence.
During this presentation, Kandies’ mother testified that her husband was physically violent towards her and drank alcohol excessively, and that Kandies, even at a young age, would attempt to protect her and his sister from the man he then believed was his father. Ms. Kandies testified that, when Kandies was approximately 14 years old, she and her husband planned to separate and Kandies learned for the first time that her husband was not his *487biological father and that his biological father was deceased. According to Ms. Kandies, this upset Kandies significantly and for a long time. According to Ms. Kandies, Kandies got drunk in high school and had to complete a 6-week alcohol and drug abuse program, and Kandies eventually dropped out of school his senior year. Kandies’ friends and other acquaintances confirmed this history of substance abuse.
Dr. Brian Glover, a clinical psychologist with a specialty in addictive disorders and a clinical faculty member with the Department of Psychiatry at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, also appeared for the defense. Dr. Glover testified that he personally interviewed Kan-dies on three separate occasions prior to trial, for a total of approximately six hours, and interviewed three of Kandies’ acquaintances to collaborate the information obtained from Kandies regarding his social history and substance abuse. At trial, Dr. Glover presented extensive testimony regarding Kandies’ history of substance abuse, which began when he was 12 years old and escalated during his adolescent years. Dr. Glover testified that, in his opinion, Kandies had a long-standing, severe dependence on alcohol, constituting a mental or emotional disturbance. Dr. Glover testified that, based upon Kandies’ statement that he had drunk approximately twelve beers on the day of Natalie’s rape and murder, and the effect of that quantity upon his ability to make good decisions or judgments and control his emotions, it was his opinion that Kandies’ ability to appreciate the criminality of his actions was impaired on the evening that Natalie was raped and killed.
Dr. Claudia Coleman, a forensic psychologist who assisted the defense in the preparation of the mitigation case, also conducted extensive interviews, including asking questions pertaining to Kandies’ social, educational, and family history. She interviewed Kandies in September 1993 and in November 1993 for approximately three hours each time, and conducted psychological testing, intellectual testing, and neuropsychological screening for neurological impairment. Dr. Coleman reviewed the police investigative reports, Kandies’ school, military, and work records, and witness statements. She also consulted with Dr. Glover. She presented testimony that Kandies had discussed with her various problems he had experienced with fighting when enlisted in the army and his ultimate discharge from the armed services, but no testimony indicating that Kandies discussed any history of sexual molestation with her. It was the opinion of Dr. Coleman that Kandies suffered from two primary clinical disorders: alcohol dependence and a personality disorder exhibiting traits of passive-aggressiveness, impulsivity, and immaturity. She classified Kandies as having emotional or mental disturbances and also testified that, in her opinion, his judgment and ability to think clearly were impaired on the evening of Natalie’s rape and murder.
Kandies declined to exercise his right to testify during the mitigation phase of his trial, choosing instead to only make the following statement in allocution:
I just want to apologize to everybody that had a part of Natalie’s life, and that’s her mother Pat, her father Ed, and her grandparents, and I just want to tell you how deeply sorry I am for what I have done, the grief that I have put you all through. I can’t change nothing, and I really wish I could. I just hope that you all can find it in your hearts to forgive me for what I have done. That’s all.
J.A. 1206.
On habeas review, Kandies takes little issue with the general thoroughness of *488the mitigation investigation conducted by his attorneys. And there appears to be no dispute that none of the mitigation witnesses, nor Kandies himself, ever mentioned anything about the sexual molestation allegedly inflicted upon Kandies as a child by his uncle. Rather, Kandies’ specific claims of ineffectiveness are quite narrow. He asserts that his attorneys’ performance fell below the prevailing professional norms, and that the state court unreasonably concluded to the contrary, because (1) Mr. Dunn lacked the necessary experience and failed to seek a mitigation investigator in contravention of the ABA Guidelines for capital litigation, and (2) Mr. Dunn unreasonably failed to specifically ask Kandies whether he had been sexually molested as a child in order to elicit that withheld information.
1.
I need not tarry long with Kandies’ first claim, i.e., that the representation he received was constitutionally ineffective, and that the state MAR court unreasonably concluded to the contrary, because his second-chair defense attorney lacked the necessary qualifications and experience to try a death penalty case and, as a result, also failed to seek a mitigation investigator as recommended by the ABA guidelines governing death penalty cases. Cf. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2536-37, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (noting that “the standards for capital defense work articulated by the American Bar Association (ABA)” have long been referred to “as ‘guides to determining what is reasonable’ ” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052)).
In order to establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Kandies was required to demonstrate that the actual representation he received from his attorneys “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” as measured by the “prevailing professional norms.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. As noted by the state court, Kandies was represented by two licensed and competent court-appointed trial attorneys. The limited experience of Mr. Dunn alone demonstrates nothing about the competency of the representation that Kandies received from his attorneys. Thus, Kandies clearly failed to demonstrate that Mr. Dunn’s limited experience in capital murder trials resulted in a performance that fell below the applicable standards or that it resulted in any prejudice to him, and the state court did not unreasonably conclude to the contrary.
Kandies’ claim that his attorneys unreasonably failed to enlist the assistance of a “mitigation investigator” is also unavailing. According to Kandies, the ABA guidelines required the attorneys to enlist the assistance of investigators and other assistants and of “experts where it is necessary or appropriate” for the preparation of the defense. As noted by the state court, and as discussed in more detail below, Kandies’ attorneys enlisted the aid and testimony of law enforcement officers and two mental health professionals during the mitigation phase of the case including, most notably, a forensic psychologist with extensive experience in capital and other criminal trials.2
*4892.
Thus, I turn to the heart of Kandies’ claim, i.e., that the state court unreasonably concluded that his defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to specifically ask him whether he had been sexually molested as a child. In a nutshell, Kandies asserts that in any capital case involving child molestation, an attorney must be deemed ineffective if he or she does not specifically ask whether the defendant has a history of sexual molestation as a child. This is so, Kandies asserts, because of the “well-known” fact that child sex offenders are often sexually molested as children.
In death penalty cases, defense attorneys are required to undertake reasonable investigations into possible mitigating evidence that could be presented during the penalty phase. See Wiggins, 123 S.Ct. at 2535-36; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “[C]ounsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgment.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “[T]here is a presumption that ‘counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.’ ” Byram v. Ozmint, 339 F.3d 203, 209 (4th Cir.2003) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052). “Strickland does not require counsel to investigate every conceivable line of mitigating evidence no matter how unlikely the effort would be to assist the defendant at sentencing. Nor does Strickland require defense counsel to present mitigating evidence at sentencing in every case.” Wiggins, 123 S.Ct. at 2541.
Having reviewed the evidence presented at sentencing and that offered in support of the state MAE claim, I cannot say that the North Carolina court’s adjudication of this claim was contrary to or an unreasonable application of these governing Supreme Court precedents. This is not a case in which trial counsel failed to conduct any inquiry, or conducted only a cursory inquiry, into the accused’s family background and social history. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 396, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (concluding that counsel’s failure to uncover and present voluminous mitigating evidence at sentencing could not be justified as a tactical decision because counsel had not “fulfill[ed] their obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant’s background”); Wiggins, 123 S.Ct. at 2536 (noting that, “in deciding whether [counsel] exercised reasonable professional judgment,” we must “focus on whether the investigation supporting counsel’s decision not to introduce mitigating evidence of [defendant’s] background was itself reasonable” (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted)). Rather, the evidence indicates that Kandies’ counsel thoroughly and competently investigated Kandies’ social history, and enlisted the assistance of experts to do the same, in order to uncover, among other things, any childhood or adolescent history that might have mitigating value. Indeed, through this process, it was discovered that Kandies had been exposed to a dysfunctional childhood environment which included an alcoholic stepfather, his stepfather’s verbal abuse and physical abuse towards his mother, Kan-dies’ attempts to protect his mother and sister from his stepfather, and Kandies’ *490discovery during his adolescent years that this man was his stepfather and not, as he had been led to believe, his father. Yet at no time did Kandies’ mother, Kandies, nor any of the other witnesses advise defense counsel or the experts retained to assist them in the preparation of mitigating evidence that Kandies had been the victim or was suspected of having been the victim of any sexual abuse or, for that matter, any physical abuse himself. Cf. Barnes v. Thompson, 58 F.3d 971, 979-80 (4th Cir.1995) (holding that defense counsel “may rely on the truthfulness of his client and those whom he interviews in deciding how to pursue his investigation”).3
In sum, the North Carolina court held that defense counsels’ otherwise thorough investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence was not rendered objectively unreasonable simply because counsel did not specifically ask Kandies if he had been sexually molested as a child. I concur in the denial of federal habeas relief because I cannot say that this adjudication was contrary to or involved an unreasonable interpretation of the applicable Supreme Court precedents. Cf. Wiggins, 123 S.Ct. at 2535 (“We have declined to articulate specific guidelines for appropriate attorney conduct and instead have emphasized that ‘[t]he proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.’ ” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052)); Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (“The reasonableness of counsel’s actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant’s own statements or actions. Counsel’s actions are usually based, quite properly, on informed strategic choices made by the defendant and on information supplied by the defendant. In particular, what investigation decisions are reasonable depends critically on such information.”).
D.
I would also deny habeas relief because, in my view, the North Carolina state court reasonably concluded that Kandies failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the failure to present the evidence of his alleged sexual molestation to the jury.
Although concluding that Kandies’ trial counsel were not ineffective in their investigation and presentation of the mitigation case, the state MAR court went on to reach this second prong of the Strickland analysis and concluded that, even if the attorneys’ failure to discover the sexual abuse could be considered deficient performance, the “evidence of record affirmatively demonstrates that the failure to produce evidence of childhood sexual abuse did not produce the prejudice that is a requirement of reversal.” J.A. 1383. Specifically, the court determined that the “failure to discover and present evidence of defendant’s childhood sexual abuse does not demonstrate the existence of a reasonable probability that the outcome of the sentencing phase of the trial would have been different had trial counsel presented such evidence.” J.A. 1383.
In order to establish a Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel *491claim, Kandies was required to demonstrate that counsel’s alleged deficient performance prejudiced his defense. In order to demonstrate prejudice, Kandies was required to “show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also Wiggins, 123 S.Ct. at 2542. In the death penalty context, to assess prejudice, the court must “reweigh the evidence in aggravation against the totality of the available mitigating evidence.” Wiggins, 123 S.Ct. at 2542. Prejudice requires “a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have struck a different balance.” Wiggins, 123 S.Ct. at 2543.
Few would dispute that the aggravating evidence in this case was compelling. The jury was presented with evidence that Kandies brutally raped and murdered a four-year-old child. Blood was found on the bathroom floor and tub, the bedroom floor, the laundry room floor, the kitchen floor, and the floor between the bedroom, bathroom, and den at Kandies’ home. As noted by the North Carolina Supreme Court,
the State’s evidence tended to show that Natalie was savagely beaten, strangled, and sexually assaulted by a man whom she knew and trusted. When discovered, she was in a trash bag buried in the recesses of a closet, bloodied and naked, with her soiled [panties and playsuit] piled on top of her. An autopsy showed that Natalie had suffered two bluntforce lacerations to the top of her head. The right side of her head was fractured, and there were seven separate bone fragments in the area, one of which had penetrated the brain and caused a hemorrhage. There were multiple bruises on her face, back, neck, sides, and chest. An abrasion on the front of the neck measuring one-inch wide and approximately two and one-half inches long indicated manual strangulation. There was some discoloration around the rectum, bruises on both sides of the vagina, and blood deep within the vaginal canal.
The pathologist opined that Natalie died as a result of blunt-force injury to the head. While she probably lost consciousness soon after the painful blows, none of the injuries would have caused her heart to stop beating immediately. Therefore, it was several excruciating moments before she actually died.
This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to support a reasonable inference that Natalie suffered great physical pain as a result of being brutally beaten, raped with sufficient violence to cause bleeding in her vagina, and strangled so forcefully that her neck was scratched. It also supports an inference that the murder was dehumanizing and psychologically torturous. The pathologist testified that Natalie’s pelvic injuries occurred at or near the time of death. When a murder occurs during the perpetration of a violent sexual assault, it is unusually dehumanizing and debasing. Further, defendant abused the trust of a four-year-old girl and violated her in multiple ways. A reasonable jury could infer that Natalie experienced terror, confusion, and anguish from the moment the defendant drove off with her in the truck until her last breath.
Kandies, 467 S.E.2d at 84-85 (citations omitted). At the conclusion of the capital sentencing phase, the jury found, based solely upon the evidence presented during the guilt phase, that Natalie was murdered while Kandies was engaged in the commission of first-degree rape and that the mur*492der was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.
As a result of the thorough efforts of defense counsel, however, the jurors found three of five proposed statutory mitigating circumstances and eighteen of twenty-eight nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. Specifically, members of the jury found (1) that the defendant had no significant history of prior criminal activity; (2) that the murder was committed while the defendant was under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance; (3) that the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired; (4) that the defendant cried and expressed remorse when talking to Natalie’s mother on April 23, 1992; (5) that the defendant cried and expressed remorse when talking to Officer Wilson on April 23, 1992; (6) that the defendant called the Asheboro Police Department to speak to Officer Wilson regarding Natalie’s location prior to his arrest; (7) that the defendant called the Asheboro Police Department to talk to Officer Wilson to acknowledge his responsibility for Natalie’s death prior to his arrest; (8) that the defendant voluntarily waived his right to remain silent and to speak to an attorney or to have an attorney present; (9) that the defendant made voluntary acknowledgments, of his responsibility for Natalie’s death to Officer Wilson and Officer Mclver on April 23, 1992; (10) that the defendant was a chronic, long-term substance abuser; (11) that the defendant suffered from acute substance abuse; (12) that the defendant had a troubled childhood; (13) that the commission of the crime was out of character for the defendant; (14) that the defendant was led to believe that his stepfather was his biological father until he was twelve years old and was told at that time that his real father was dead; (15) that the defendant never had a positive role model; (16) that the defendant suffered from a personality disorder; (17) that the defendant came from a dysfunctional family; (18) that the defendant as a child observed verbal and physical abuse of his mother by his stepfather; (19) that the defendant was the child of an alcoholic step-parent; (20) that the defendant suffered from a history of depression; and (21) that the defendant was reared in an unstable environment.
In short, Kandies’ sentencing jurors heard and found a number of significant mitigating factors, yet still unanimously found that the mitigating circumstances did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances and recommended a sentence of death. The North Carolina MAR court determined that there was no reasonable probability that the jury would have returned a different sentence recommendation had it been confronted with Kandies’ testimony that he was sexually molested at the age of six in the fashion described in his affidavit. In light of the totality of the evidence presented at trial and in the state habeas proceeding, I cannot say that this was an unreasonable decision on its part.
IV.
The next issue is whether the North Carolina Supreme Court’s rejection of Kandies’ Batson claims “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the -facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U..S.C.A. § 2254(d)(1) and (2). The prosecution peremptorily struck several prospective African-American jurors; Kan-dies contends that the State excluded these jurors based on their race, which is constitutionally impermissible under Bat-son, which teaches that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the use of peremptory strikes against a prospective juror on *493the basis of race. 476 U.S. at 85-86, 106 S.Ct. 1712. The Supreme Court has prescribed a three-step analytical process for evaluating a Batson claim. First, the opponent of the peremptory strike “must make a prima facie showing that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race.” Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 358, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991) (plurality). Second, if a prima fade showing has been made, “the proponent of the strike [must] come forward with a race-neutral explanation.” Burkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (per curiam). As long as the explanation is not inherently discriminatory on its face, “the reason offered will be deemed race neutral.” Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360, 111 S.Ct. 1859.
Third, if the proponent of the strike has proffered a race-neutral explanation, “the trial court must then decide ... whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination.” Purkett, 514 U.S. at 767, 115 S.Ct. 1769. Thus, “the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.” Id. at 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769. The third step presents the trial court with a “pure issue of fact.” Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 364, 111 S.Ct. 1859. Even on direct review, the trial court’s findings with respect to discriminatory intent are reviewed with significant deference because such findings “largely will turn on evaluation of credibility” and an appellate court “is not as well positioned as the trial court is to make credibility determinations.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). This approach holds true all the more so on habeas review, where we apply the extremely deferential standard prescribed by statute. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d). As noted above, a state court’s conclusion with respect to whether there was discriminatory intent in the prosecution’s exercise of peremptories is a factual determination. In turn, in federal habeas proceedings, factual determinations by the state court “shall be presumed to be correct,” and the “[habeas] applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(e)(1); see Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 340, 123 S.Ct. 1029.
Pursuant to North Carolina law, the State must begin the voir dire process by individually questioning twelve randomly selected members of the prospective juror panel. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A-1214(d). If a prospective juror is excused for cause or removed because the State exercises a peremptory strike, the clerk immediately draws a replacement. This continues until “the prosecutor is satisfied with the 12 in the box,” at which point the prospective jurors are “tendered to the defendant.” Id. However, “[u]ntil the prosecutor indicates his satisfaction, he may make a challenge for cause or exercise a peremptory challenge to strike any juror, whether an original or replacement juror.” Id.
In a North Carolina capital case, both the State and the defendant are allotted 14 peremptory challenges during jury selection. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A-1217(a). Additionally, “[e]ach party is entitled to one peremptory challenge for each alternate juror in addition to any unused challenges.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A-1217(c). In selecting the jurors who decided Ran-dies’ case, the prosecutor used twelve of his fourteen allotted peremptory strikes. Eight of the twelve prospective jurors peremptorily struck by the prosecutor were African-American. The final racial composition of the jury included two African-Americans. The prosecutor accepted a third African-American juror, but Randies *494used one of his own peremptory challenges to excuse that juror. Following the selection of twelve jurors, the parties also selected three alternate jurors. Six potential alternate jurors underwent voir dire examination by the parties. The prosecution peremptorily struck three prospective alternate jurors, one of whom was African-American.
In every instance that the State exercised a peremptory challenge against an African-American juror, Kandies raised a Batson objection. And, in each case, the prosecution came forward with race-neutral reasons for exercising the peremptory challenge in question, even though the trial court never explicitly determined whether Kandies had established a prima facie case of discrimination during his series of Batson motions. In essence, the trial court’s analysis proceeded from the second Batson step. On direct review, the North Carolina Supreme Court noted that, in such a case, it is appropriate for the trial court to proceed “as if a prima facie case had been established” for every venireperson at issue. Kandies, 467 S.E.2d at 75. On habeas review, we have taken the same approach. See Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 918 (4th Cir.1997) (“Because the prosecutor offered a race-neutral explanation in response to Matthews’ objection, the preliminary issue of whether Matthews established a prima facie case of discrimination is moot.”).
Kandies’ specific arguments in support of his Batson claim can be divided loosely into two groups. First, he contends that the court’s conclusion that there was no purposeful discrimination in the State’s use of its peremptory strikes was unreasonable in light of the fact that the State’s reasons for peremptorily striking the nine prospective African-American jurors were equally applicable to several prospective Caucasian jurors who were accepted by the State. Second, Kandies argues that the state court ignored other evidence of discriminatory intent, including the statistical disparity between the number of African-American jurors struck from the panel and the number of Caucasian jurors struck and the prosecutor’s alleged personal history of systematically using peremptory strikes to exclude African-American jurors.
A. Disparate Treatment of Similarly Situated Caucasian Jurors
The State exercised peremptory challenges against nine prospective African-American jurors. Kandies claims that six of these jurors — Randleman, Jinwright, Rawlinson, Hines, McClure, and Oliver— were struck despite being similarly situated to Caucasian jurors who were accepted by the prosecution. See Bell v. Ozmint, 382 F.3d 229, 241 (4th. Cir.2003) (“Comparative juror analysis clearly is a relevant consideration in the Batson analysis” for determining whether the prosecutor’s explanation was pretextual.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 1155, 157 L.Ed.2d 1049 (2004).

Jurors Randleman and Jinwright

The prosecutor articulated two reasons for striking Juror Randleman. First, in answering background questions posed by a questionnaire which prospective jurors completed in advance of jury selection, Randleman failed to disclose that she had been convicted of a criminal offense. Prior to voir dire, however, the prosecutor performed a criminal records check that revealed Randleman “ha[d] been convicted of worthless checks and two speeding violations.” J.A. 131. Second, the prosecutor perceived Randleman to be “hesitant” when asked whether she had any feelings about the death penalty. J.A. 131.
With respect to Juror Jinwright, the State’s proffered basis for exercising a peremptory challenge was Jinwright’s for*495mer employment at a day care center where she cared for three- and four-year-old children. Moreover, the prosecutor believed, based on her voir dire testimony, that Jinwright, like Randleman, was “hesitant on the death penalty question.” Id.
Kandies did not reply to the state’s proffered reasons for using its peremptory strikes against Randleman and Jinwright. Thus, the trial court denied the Batson motion, finding that “the State has enunciated clear and logical bases and grounds for the exercise of peremptory challenges and said grounds ... are not for improperly racially discriminatory motives.” J.A. 135.
On direct appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court, Kandies argued “that the prosecutor passed several similarly situated white jurors,” proving the pretextual nature of the State’s explanation for its peremptory strikes against Randleman and Jinwright. Kandies, 467 S.E.2d at 75. The court concluded that Kandies’ pretext argument was flawed with respect to Ran-dleman and Jinwright because Kandies had simply picked “ ‘a single factor among the several articulated by the prosecutor ... and match[ed] it to a passed juror who exhibited that same factor.’ ” Id. at 75-76 (quoting State v. Porter, 326 N.C. 489, 391 S.E.2d 144, 152 (1990)). The court explained that it had previously rejected such an approach to determining pretext under Batson as it “ ‘fail[ed] to address the factors as a totality.’ ” Id. at 76, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (quoting Porter, 391 S.E.2d at 152).
Kandies argues that the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision was unreasonable specifically because the State accepted prospective Caucasian jurors who expressed a hesitancy on the death penalty, but used the same factor as a basis for striking Randleman and Jinwright.
Even if Kandies were correct that various Caucasian jurors accepted by the State expressed virtually identical views about the death penalty as Randleman and Jin-wright, this does not a fortiori demonstrate that Randleman and Jinwright were similarly situated such that the State’s race-neutral reasons were necessarily pre-textual. Indeed, “Batson is not violated whenever two veniremen of different races provide the same responses and one is excused and the other is not.” Matthews, 105 F.3d at 918. In Bell v. Ozmint, we held that a state court decision rejecting a Batson claim was not unreasonable where African-American and Caucasian jurors expressed similar views of the death penalty, but the State peremptorily struck only the African-American juror. The State offered two race-neutral reasons for its use of the peremptory challenge: the African-American juror’s feelings about the death penalty and “the similarity in ages between [the juror’s] children and [the defendant].” 332 F.3d at 241. Because the Caucasian juror did not have children of the same approximate age, the court concluded that the jurors were not similarly situated, despite the apparent similarity of their views on the death penalty. See id. at 242; see also Matthews, 105 F.3d at 918 (finding Caucasian jurors were not similarly situated to African-American juror who was struck because of his views on the death penalty and his criminal record where there was no evidence “that any white juror seated had a criminal record.”).
Kandies’ argument fails to acknowledge that the prosecutor offered other reasons for striking these jurors even before mentioning that they were unsure about the death penalty. With respect to Randle-man in particular, this argument utterly ignores the obvious and concrete distinction between her and the Caucasian jurors he claims were similarly hesitant about the death penalty. Randleman’s juror information form indicated that she had not *496been convicted of a crime when, in truth, the State’s record check listed convictions for writing bad checks and committing speeding violations. Unquestionably, a prospective juror’s criminal record alone, even if there was no failure to disclose, is race-neutral on its face. See Matthews, 105 F.3d at 917-18. Kandies has not shown that any of the prospective Caucasian jurors he believes held similar views on the death penalty had a criminal record or, if so, failed to disclose it. I see no clear and convincing evidence that the State struck Randleman based on race.
Kandies counters that because the prosecutor did not introduce evidence of Ran-dleman’s criminal history, the basis articulated by the State was not supported by the record and cannot serve as justification for a peremptory strike. This argument, in my view, bungles Batson’s analytical framework. It implies that the State, in coming forward with its race-neutral justification at the second stage of Batson, bears some evidentiary burden.4 That is not accurate. The State’s burden at that stage is merely to articulate a facially neutral reason for having exercised a peremptory strike. The prosecutor, in other words, simply must come up with a reason “based on something other than the race of the juror.” Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360, 111 S.Ct. 1859. This is not a tall order, given that “[t]he second step of this process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive or even plausible.” Purkett, 514 U.S. at 767-68, 115 S.Ct. 1769. As long as the State comes up with a reason— anything other than a mere denial of discriminatory intent — it has done all that is required at the second stage.. See id. at 769, 115 S.Ct. 1769. Whether the trial court believes the reason actually motivated the prosecutor is a question that must be answered at the third stage of the Batson analysis, and even then it is the opponent of the strike who shoulders the burden of proof. See id. at 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769. Thus, the State’s reliance on Ran-dleman’s criminal history was a perfectly appropriate race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory challenge, and it was Kandies, not the State, who was required to demonstrate otherwise. Kandies has not produced any clear and convincing evidence to rebut the state court’s factual determination in this regard.
With respect to Jinwright, who was purportedly struck because of her former day care employment and her feelings about the death penalty, Kandies again claims that the State did not strike similarly situated Caucasian jurors. The prosecutor was concerned about the link between a prospective juror’s employment and the Department of Social Services, explaining that defense counsel “is aware of some of the problems in this case involving Social Services and if we get into that I certainly do not want a juror that was involved in a Day Care or Social Services type work.” J.A. 168. Only two of the prospective Caucasian-jurors had worked in a school-type setting with young children — alternate jurors Arlington and Spence. In both cases, however, there were obvious reasons for the State to accept the jurors. In Arlington’s case, her husband was a detective who had been on the job for 30 years. That this is an attractive factor for the *497prosecution — and one that makes her substantially dissimilar to Jinwright — is confirmed by the fact that Kandies challenged Arlington for cause and made clear that, had he not exhausted his allotment of peremptory strikes by that point in the trial, he would have excluded her. Spence testified that both her daughter and her parents were robbery victims, and that in both cases, the perpetrator was never found and brought to justice. She noted that she had been “very angry” about the crime against her daughter, but that she “probably” could be fair to both the State and the defendant in a criminal case. J.A. 680. Again, Kandies’ argument that Spence and Jinwright are so similarly situated is undercut by the fact that he exercised a peremptory strike against Juror Spence.
Kandies has not pointed to any clear and convincing evidence that would rebut the state court’s finding that the prosecution did not strike jurors Randleman and Jin-wright with discriminatory intent.

Juror Hines

The next of Kandies’ Batson motions covered Juror Hines. Before exercising its peremptory challenge, the State moved to strike Juror Hines for cause after he indicated that he was the sole support for his family and the hardship imposed by jury service would impair his ability to serve. After the trial court refused to strike for cause, the State used a peremptory strike. Kandies again objected under Batson, arguing that, although Hines stated during voir dire that he held no strong feelings about the death penalty, he indicated he could consider either option in accordance with the court’s instructions.
The prosecutor offered several reasons for excusing Hines: that Hines was worried about the loss of income that jury service would entail; that Hines claimed “he ha[d] never thought about the death penalty” before; that he failed to disclose on his juror questionnaire prior convictions for driving while impaired and driving without a valid license; and that during his voir dire testimony, he denied having a criminal history. J.A. 605.5
In rejecting this claim, the trial court noted two of the State’s bases for its peremptory challenges — Hines’ concern over missing work and his failure to disclose prior convictions — as well as the fact that two of the eight jurors that the State had accepted up to that point in the trial were African American. The trial court also noted that the State had accepted a third African-American juror, but Kandies used one of his own peremptory strikes to exclude that juror. On direct appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed. See Kandies, 467 S.E.2d at 76.
Kandies now argues that the State did not strike two Caucasian jurors who were similarly situated to Hines because, like him, they expressed concerns about the impact of jury service on their employment. Again, this argument ignores the other race-neutral reasons articulated by the State. Kandies does not suggest that the Caucasian jurors who were concerned about their employment also had criminal records. Like juror Randleman, Hines is *498not similarly situated for purposes of a comparative juror analysis under Batson. See Ozmint, 332 F.3d at 241—42. Certainly, such evidence does not rise to the clear and convincing level required to rebut the presumption of correctness afforded the state court’s determination that the State had no discriminatory motive in striking Hines. Moreover, for the reasons already stated with respect to Randleman, the State’s failure to submit a copy of Hines’s record into evidence had no bearing on whether the State adequately discharged its obligation to articulate an explanation that was neutral on its face.

Juror Oliver

During the selection of alternate jurors, the State exercised a peremptory strike of Juror Oliver, who was African-American. The. State responded to Kandies’ Batson motion by explaining that Oliver had difficulty hearing, as evidenced by her failure to follow the court’s instructions to refrain from watching television or radio broadcasts about the trial. The prosecutor’s primary concern was whether she would be able “to hear and understand me as this case goes along.” J.A. 969. Kandies countered that the State had accepted Caucasian jurors who had not followed the court’s preliminary instructions. The trial court rejected Kandies’ argument that the jurors were similarly situated, finding persuasive the State’s proffered reasons: “the juror’s apparent inability to hear the Court’s instructions ... and the juror’s obvious inability to hear the questions of the District Attorney without requesting clarification on numerous occasions during the voir dire process.” J.A. 970 (emphasis added).
The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected Kandies’ Batson claim to the extent it was based on Oliver, specifically mentioning the trial court’s own observation that Oliver was not able to respond to questions during voir dire without requesting clarification several times. See Kandies, 467 S.E.2d at 76.
Kandies argues that the State accepted a number of Caucasian jurors who failed to strictly follow the. instructions of the trial court, which regularly admonished prospective jurors during the voir dire process to avoid exposure to media accounts of the trial. In support of his argument, Kandies specifies three Caucasian jurors who indicated that they either read a newspaper account or listened to a television report about the trial after the jury selection process had begun. Kandies also claims that the prosecutor failed to thoroughly question all of the Caucasian jurors on their level of media exposure.
Kandies’ argument, at best, misper-ceives the nature of the State’s concern, which was obviously Oliver’s hearing. Oliver’s, numerous requests for the prosecutor to repeat his questions prompted the prosecutor to ask Oliver if she had difficulty hearing, to which she responded she did not hear very well and that “everybody’s not talking loud enough.” J.A. 967. The trial court’s conclusion that there was no discriminatory intent was also obviously based on Oliver’s inability to hear; the court mentioned her apparent failure to follow instructions as a manifestation of her hearing problem. See Kandies, 467 S.E.2d at 76. Kandies has not suggested that there were non-minority jurors who, like Oliver, could not hear or had difficulty following the proceedings but were accepted by the State nonetheless. In fact, the only other juror who apparently had hearing difficulty was Juror Massey, who was struck by the State because she “had trouble understanding” questions asked by the prosecutor during voir dire, “continuously answered with difficulty,” and because the prosecutor could not easily understand her *499responses. J.A. 131.6 Accordingly, Kan-dies has not pointed to any jurors similarly situated to Oliver, except for race, who were treated differently by the State during its exercise of peremptory strikes. Thus, he has failed to come forward with clear and convincing evidence to rebut the state court’s finding that there was no discriminatory intent.

Jurors McClure and Rawlinson

The prosecutor indicated that he struck Juror McClure because, among other things, a law enforcement officer present in the court-room noticed him sleeping at least two times. Kandies did not refute this assertion at trial, nor does he point to anything now that would suggest this race-neutral reason was pretextual. With respect to Juror Rawlinson, the prosecutor noted that she did not express during voir dire a strong opinion with regard to the death penalty. The prosecutor also indicated that he asked employees of the local police department whether they had any knowledge of anyone on the jury panel from whom the jury would be selected, and learned that neither Rawlinson nor McClure were thought to be a good choice for a capital murder trial jury:
[PROSECUTOR]:.... I discussed the jury panel with the High Point Police Department, and they indicated Mr. McClure and Mrs. Rawlinson would not be good jurors for this type of case.
THE COURT: Do you want to elaborate on that, please?
[PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, I asked most everybody and basically indicated anyone that they had any contact with prior to the trial. Primarily, the reason was that they were weak on the death penalty question.
J.A. 167-68. Kandies did not object to the sufficiency of this particular reason offered by the State for using peremptory strikes against McClure or Rawlinson, nor did he request any further explanation from the State with respect to this basis.
The trial court concluded that the bases offered by the prosecutor were valid and found that these prospective jurors were not struck by the State on the basis of race. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the reasons offered by the State were valid and that the trial court did not err in concluding that the exercise of peremptory challenges against McClure and Rawlinson was not “motivated by impermissible racial discrimination.” Kandies, 467 S.E.2d at 76.
Because the prosecutor used their responses to questions about the death penalty as one of the bases for striking them, Kandies argues that McClure and Rawlinson also were subject to disparate treatment, as evidenced by the State’s acceptance of Caucasian jurors who were similarly situated because of weak or ambivalent views on capital punishment.
With respect to McClure, Kandies has not pointed to anything in the record to suggest that there were Caucasian jurors that the State accepted even though they *500were nodding off in court or unable to pay attention. Once again, Kandies has simply ignored a race-neutral reason that clearly distinguishes the stricken juror from others accepted by the State.
With respect to Rawlinson, there was no other prospective juror, except for McClure, who the State struck based on the juror’s prior contact with employees of the local police department and the employees’ impressions of the juror’s feelings about capital punishment. Again, this undercuts Kandies’ “similarly situated” argument.
Kandies counters that the prosecutor’s purported reliance on the opinion of local police personnel, based on prior contact, that Rawlinson and McClure were weak on capital punishment was insufficient to provide a race-neutral basis for striking Raw-linson and McClure. Kandies argues that this explanation was “little more than a hunch, and the very type of explanation that is inherently suspect.” Brief of Appellant at 29 (emphasis added). Although this argument lacks precision, it appears clearly to be directed at step two of the Batson analysis, which is satisfied as long as the State does not offer a reason in which “discriminatory intent is inherent.” Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360, 111 S.Ct. 1859 (emphasis added). Indeed, Kandies argues that the basis articulated by the prosecutor was “legally insufficient to survive a Batson challenge.” Brief of Appellant at 29 (emphasis, added). At step two, the trial court examines the prosecutor’s explanation to determine whether, “as a matter of law,” it is a valid race-neutral reason on its face. Id. at 359, 111 S.Ct. 1859.
Specifically, then, Kandies argues that reliance on feedback from the local police department cannot constitute a race-neutral basis’ because it is nothing more than an undefined “feeling” about a prospective juror. Brief of Appellant at 29. Cf. United States v. Horsley, 864 F.2d 1543, 1546 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (rejecting prosecutor’s explanation that he “just [had] a feeling about him”). But see United States v. Bentley-Smith, 2 F.3d 1368, 1375 (5th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (stating that a prosecutor’s intuition, standing alone, is a sufficient race-neutral reason for purposes of Batson).
Batson instructs that the State must rebut a prima facie case by articulating “a clear and reasonably specific explanation of his legitimate reasons for exercising the challenges.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n. 20, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (internal quotation marks omitted). Subsequent decisions clarified the limited nature of this requirement, which was imposed to prevent, a prosecutor from “satisfying] his burden of production by merely denying that he had a discriminatory motive or by merely affirming his good faith.” Purkett, 514 U.S. at 769, 115 S.Ct. 1769. Certainly, the explanation given by the prosecutor here is sufficient.to satisfy Batson’s modest race-neutral requirement. It is specific and reasonably related to the case; it need not be “persuasive, or even plausible.” Id. at 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769. On its face, the proffered explanation is “based on something other than the race” of the prospective jurors, which is all that is required. Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360, 111 S.Ct. 1859. I note my concern, however, about this type of reason as it is virtually impossible for the defense to effectively challenge. Nevertheless, under the circumstances of this case, I cannot say that the state court’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Batson or its progeny.
B. Other Evidence of Discriminatory Intent
Kandies’ next argument is that the trial court ignored statistically significant evi*501dence that supported a finding of discrimination. Specifically, he contends that
[t]he prosecutor exercised fifteen peremptory challenges, nine of which were directed against African Americans. When Kandies objected to each of them, the trial court did not determine if a prima facie case had been presented. Rather, the prosecutor simply volunteered explanations for these challenges. The trial court then decided if these explanations were race-neutral. By proceeding in this fashion, the trial court never judged the strength of Kandies’ prima facie case. In other words, the trial court neither considered the number of strikes the prosecutor exercised against African Americans nor evaluated the dramatic difference in the percentages of strikes against African Americans as opposed to whites. Because it never determined the strength of the prima facie case, the trial court could not factor it into the ultimate determination ... contrary to Batson.
Brief of Appellant at 22-23. Kandies supports his claim of statistical disparity by explaining that the prosecutor used per-emptories on eight of eleven otherwise qualified African-American jurors (73%), but that he used peremptory challenges on only four of twenty-six (15%) prospective Caucasian jurors. Kandies contends that the trial court was required to, but did not, “weigh the asserted [race-neutral] justification against the strength of [his] prima fade case under the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Hill, 146 F.3d 337, 342 (6th Cir.1998).
Kandies bases this argument primarily on language in Miller-El suggesting that the ultimate determination of whether, “despite the neutral explanation of the prosecution, the peremptory strikes ... were race based” should include “the facts and circumstances that were adduced in support of the prima facie case.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 340, 123 S.Ct. 1029 (emphasis added). The Court concluded that the district court failed to consider fully petitioner’s prima facie evidence that prosecutors struck “91% of the eligible African-American venire members” — -which was alone enough to create a sufficiently debatable Batson issue that warranted a certificate of appealability under § 2253. Id. at 342, 123 S.Ct. 1029.
To me, it appears that Kandies’ argument encompasses two discrete contentions based on these snippets from Miller-El. Because Kandies never presented any statistical evidence to the state trial court in support of his Batson challenges (so far as I can tell), Kandies’ argument would mean, first, that a state trial court could not properly skip the first step in Batson, requiring a determination of whether a prima facie case had been made. It bears repeating that it was perfectly acceptable under the circumstances for the trial court to bypass any specific analysis of whether Kandies had established a prima facie case. As the Supreme Court has explained, and this court has reiterated, “[o]nce a prosecutor has offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenges and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the preliminary issue of whether the defendant had made a prima facie showing becomes moot.” Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 359, 111 S.Ct. 1859; see Bell, 332 F.3d at 240 n. 5. Moreover, Kan-dies, who would have benefitted from not having to clear the first Batson hurdle, never insisted at trial that the court make a prima facie determination rather than proceeding as if a prima facie showing had been made. For him to suggest now that the trial court was derelict for not having done so strikes me as disingenuous.
*502Kandies’ argument would also alleviate his burden of proof to a certain extent. Miller-El, however, does not alter the three-step Batson analysis or its allocation of the burden of proof to the opponent of the peremptory strike. Rather, it confirms that statistical evidence of a discriminatory pattern of peremptory strikes is relevant to a prima facie case. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-97, 106 S.Ct. 1712; see also Howard v. Moore, 131 F.3d 399, 407 (4th Cir.1997) (en banc). Although Kan-dies was not actually required to make a prima facie case here, neither was he prohibited from adducing evidence that bolstered his allegations that the State was striking African-Americans because of their race. Technically, what he is suggesting is that the trial court take into consideration evidence that he could have used, but did not, to support a prima facie case. I am not aware of such a requirement in Miller-El or any other case. In fact, the very language Kandies relies on indicates that the trial court should consider facts “adduced” in support of a prima facie case.
Moreover, although the trial court was not presented with statistical evidence, the record reveals that the trial court did consider, following each round of peremptory strikes, the number of strikes exercised against African-American jurors vis-a-vis Caucasian jurors. For example, after the first round of peremptory strikes by the State, the trial court prefaced its ruling on Kandies’ Batson motion by noting that the State “exercised six peremptory challenges, ... three [of which] ... have been exercised as to the members of the black race.” J.A. 135. After the second round of strikes, the trial court prefaced its ruling as follows: “[Fallowing the exercise of the State’s first [six] peremptory challenges ... six replacement jurors [were] called, three by their questionnaires indicated that they were members of the Black race.... The District Attorney has passed one of the prospective jurors called as a replacement juror who is a member of a minority race and had peremptorily excused [the other] two [African-American jurors].” J.A. 168A. In both cases, as discussed in detail above, the court went on to find that the State had articulated a valid basis for striking each of the African-American jurors and, ultimately, that the peremptory strikes had not been exercised on the basis of race.
In sum, this does not constitute the clear and convincing evidence needed to rebut the presumption of correctness enjoyed by the state court’s finding that there was no discrimination.
Finally, Kandies contends that the trial court ignored the prosecutor’s alleged personal history of purposely excluding prospective minority jurors on the basis of race. This “evidence” was nothing more than a eónclusory statement by defense counsel that he had never in the past seen the prosecutor leave a minority panel member on the jury. He cites Miller-El in support, but a bare, unsubstantiated statement by defense counsel is nothing like the extensive testimony in Miller-El about the history of discrimination and the official policy adopted by the district attorney’s office to exclude minorities from jury duty. See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 334-35, 123 S.Ct. 1029. In short, defense counsel’s comment is insufficient to rebut the trial court’s factual determination by clear and convincing evidence.
C. Conclusion
In sum, I cannot say that the state court’s decision rejecting Kandies’ Batson claim was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor can I say that this *503decision was based upon an unreasonable factual determination.
V.
For the foregoing reasons, I concur in the result reached by Judge Gregory on both the ineffective assistance claim and the Batson claim.

. As noted by the state MAR court, trial counsel presented the testimony of Kandies' mother, three of Kandies' friends from South Carolina, Kandies' former landlady in Maine, a former driving instructor and coworker of Kandies, the clerk from a beer store near Kandies’ place of employment where he frequently bought significant quantities of beer, an expert in substance abuse who spent numerous hours interviewing Kandies, and a forensic psychologist who spent numerous hours interviewing and testing Kandies.

. The record is unclear as to whether Kandies raised this "mitigation investigator" claim before the state MAR court or, for that matter, whether he raised the ABA guidelines in support of his ineffectiveness claim at all before that court. The state court opinion appears to indicate that Kandies took issue with Mr. Dunn's experience under the state rules governing the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants. However, the state does not assert that these more specific claims are procedurally barred. In any event, I have no trouble concluding de novo that Kandies failed to demonstrate that his counsel was *489ineffective based upon his level of experience or his failure to retain a mitigation investigator or that the state court’s adjudication of the "experience” claim was not an unreasonable one.

. As noted by the state MAR court:
Neither of the two experts in psychology who interviewed and evaluated defendant mentioned in their testimony anything indicating that defendant had told them that he had been the victim of sexual abuse as a child. Furthermore, neither defendant's mother nor any of the other witnesses who testified on. defendant's behalf said anything about defendant being the victim of sexual abuse as a child. On the one occasion when defendant personally addressed the jury, he did not state anything about being sexually abused as a child.
J.A. 1379.

. At least, this appears to me to be the thrust of his argument: "It is ... specious that the prosecutor relied on the purported criminal records of several prospective African-American jurors when nothing in the record supported these naked assertions. Nothing in the record supported this explanation, as the prosecutor did not introduce any evidence about these purported records. The State should not be permitted to justify its strikes with information not in the record, especially when a defendant does not have access to this information.” Brief of Appellant at 30 (emphasis added).

. At trial, Kandies responded by renewing his motion that the State be required to share any information it gathered from any criminal record check performed by the prosecution. Kandies pursued this issue on direct appeal, arguing that the State was required to produce "copies of all the criminal record checks for prospective jurors obtained by the prosecution.” Kandies, 467 S.E.2d at 76. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that this information was not subject to disclosure under North Carolina law, and that Kandies had the burden of proof and "had sufficient opportunity to produce evidence that the prospective jurors in question did not have criminal records.” Id. at 77.

. Kandies argues that the prosecutor’s belief that Massey could not easily understand the proceedings was a sham explanation for striking her and was not supported by the record because "Massey only asked the prosecutor to repeat one question, and the prosecutor never asked her to repeat any of her answers.” Brief of Appellant at 29. This observation falls dramatically short of the clear and convincing evidence Kandies must produce to overcome the presumptive correctness of the state court’s factual determination that there was no discriminatoiy intent. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(e)(1). Here, in particular, we should be wary of substituting our judgment, based on the bare transcript, for that of the state trial court, who was present during the proceedings and observed this prospective juror first-hand. See Evans v. Smith, 220 F.3d 306, 316 (4th Cir.2000).