Full opinion text
ORDER EVANS, District Judge. This § 2254 death penalty case is before the Court on the parties’ briefs (“Petitioner’s/Respondent’s Brief’) filed as directed in this Court’s previous Order. Crowe v. Head, 356 F.Supp.2d 1339 (N.D.Ga.2005) (“January Order”). Based on the reasoning set forth below, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Factual and Procedural Background........................................1316 II. January Order...........................................................1317 III. Claims Reviewed on the Merits in 2000 State Habeas Petition — Ineffective Assistance of Counsel...................................................1318 1. Original Indictment..................■.................................1319 2. Mitigation............................................................1319 3. Forensic Testimony...................................................1322 4. Closing Arguments.....................................................1323 5. Conflict of Interest........................ 1324 6. Fee Disputes.........................................................1326 7. Crime Reenactment...................................................1326 IV. Claims Raised on Direct Appeal and Barred in 2000 State Habeas Petition Under Elrod...................,.......................................1327 1. Interference with Right to Counsel....................... 1327 a. Facts............................................................1327 b. Application.......................................................1329 2. Use of a Cleansed Indictment...........................................1332 3. Unconstitutional Limits on Mitigation Evidence...........................1336 4. Prosecutorial Misconduct ..............................................1337 a. Represented by Counsel...........................................1337 b. Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment Right...............■..................1338 c. Right to Jury...............■......................................1340 d. Religious References..............................................1341 5. Suppression of Evidence...............................................1341 a. Sheriffs Deputies’ Reports.........................................1341 b. Failure to Seal the State’s File or Conduct in camera Inspection of File...........................................................1342 6. Acceptance of Petitioner’s Guilty and Alford Pleas.........................1343 7. Admission of Pretrial Suppression Hearing Statement.....................1343 V. Claims Barred by Georgia’s Procedural Default Rule in 2000 State Habeas Petition...............................................................1344 1. Prosecutorial Misconduct ..............................................1344 2. Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence....................................1345 3. Juror Misconduct.....................................................1346 a. Premature Deliberations...........................................1346 b. Bailiffs Comment.................................................1347 c. Alternate Jurors..................................................1348 4. Trial Counsel’s Conflict of Interest......................................1348 5. Reenactment of the Crime and View of the Crime Scene...................1348 6. Errors in Jury Selection...............................................1349 7. Improper Jury Instructions............................................1350 VI. Claims Raised in 2002 State Habeas Petition.................................1351 1. Cruel and Unusual Punishment.........................................1351 2. Equal Protection Violation.............................................1354 VII. Conclusion...............................................................1356 I. Factual and Procedural Background A complete factual and procedural history of the case is set forth in the January Order. Id. at 1341-47. A brief summary is included here. Samuel David Crowe (“Petitioner” or “Crowe”) was arrested for the murder of Joseph Pala on March 3, 1988. Petitioner hired Michael Bergin (“counsel” or “Bergin”) in April 1988 to defend him against his capital murder and armed robbery charges in Douglas County Superior Court. Crowe’s mother agreed to pay Bergin $70,000 to represent her son. Against Bergin’s advice, Crowe entered a guilty plea to the murder charge and an Alford plea to the armed robbery charge on May 5, 1989. The trial court judge, Superior Court Judge Robert J. James, accepted Petitioner’s guilty pleas. A jury subsequently found the existence of aggravating circumstances — Petitioner committed the murder during the course of an armed robbery and for the purpose of receiving money, and the murder was outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved depravity of mind and an aggravated battery — and sentenced Petitioner to death on November 18, 1989. Judge James imposed a life sentence for the armed robbery charge on November 20,1989. Bergin filed a timely notice of appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court on December 8, 1989. Then, through new counsel, Michael Mears, Petitioner filed an extraordinary motion for new trial on April 16,1990. Crowe sought an evidentiary hearing to prove his grounds for a new trial. The trial court dismissed the motion on April 20, 1990. Crowe appealed from the dismissal of his extraordinary motion to the Georgia Supreme Court. The Court remanded the case to the Superior Court of Douglas County and ordered a hearing solely on the issues Petitioner raised in his extraordinary motion. Superior Court Judge David Emerson held an evidentia-ry hearing on the motion on March 3,1994. Judge Emerson denied the motion in a 31-page written order which made findings of fact and conclusions of law. Mears filed a consolidated appeal on Petitioner’s behalf in the Supreme Court of Georgia as to the entry of his guilty pleas, the imposition of the death penalty, and the denial of his extraordinary motion. The court rejected Crowe’s challenges, affirmed his convictions and sentences, and affirmed the denial of the extraordinary motion for a new trial. Crowe v. State, 265 Ga. 582, 458 S.E.2d 799 (1995). The Supreme Court of Georgia denied Crowe’s motion for reconsideration on July 17, 1995. On December 8, 1995, Crowe’s counsel filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, but it was denied on February 26, 1996. Crowe v. Georgia, 516 U.S. 1148, 116 S.Ct. 1021, 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996). The Court denied Crowe’s petition for rehearing on April 15, 1996. Crowe v. Georgia, 517 U.S. 1151, 116 S.Ct. 1455, 134 L.Ed.2d 573 (1996). Petitioner then filed his first Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Superior Court of Butts County. The Honorable William M. Towson summarily rejected each of Petitioner’s claims on July 10, 2002 (“Towson Order”). Petitioner’s final state habeas petition was rejected by the Honorable Chief Judge E. Byron Smith on September 17, 2002 (“Smith Order”). II. January Order This Court’s January Order reviewed each of the judicial proceedings leading up to Petitioner’s instant habeas petition under the strictures of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AED-PA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Act states: (d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim- (1) 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 (2) 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under the statute’s “contrary to” clause, a federal court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the federal court on a question of law, or if the state court “confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives at a result opposite” from that of the Supreme Court. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). A state court may violate the “unreasonable application” clause of § 2254(d)(1) in two ways: first, by identifying the correct governing legal principle from the Court’s decisions, but unreasonably applying that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case, id. at 407, 120 S.Ct. 1495; second, by either unreasonably extending a legal principle from Supreme Court precedent to a new context where it should not apply or unreasonably refusing to extend a legal principle to a context where it should apply. Id. More specifically, “a federal habeas court making the ‘unreasonable application’ inquiry should ask whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495. A court must keep in mind, however, that “an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law,” id. at 410, 120 S.Ct. 1495, and only a decision that is both unreasonable and incorrect will warrant habeas relief. Id. at 411, 120 S.Ct. 1495. “If, after carefully weighing all the reasons for accepting a state court’s judgment, a federal court is convinced that a prisoner’s custody — or, as in this case, his sentence of death — violates the Constitution, that independent judgment should prevail.” Id. at 389, 120 S.Ct. 1495. The AEDPA also states that the state court’s determinations of fact are “presumed to be correct,” and the habeas petitioner has “the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). However, this statutory presumption of correctness applies only to findings of fact, not to mixed determinations of law and fact. Parker v. Head, 244 F.3d 831, 836 (11th Cir.2001) (citing McBride v. Sharpe, 25 F.3d 962, 971 (11th Cir.1994)). Guided by the above principles, the January Order differentiated between those claims previously rejected based on state procedural grounds and thus not proper for review, and those rejected after a consideration of the merits and application of Federal law, which the Court reviews below. See Crowe, 356 F.Supp.2d at 1348-51. III. Claims Reviewed on the Merits in 2000 State Habeas Petition — Ineffective Assistance of Counsel The state habeas court decided Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim entirely on the merits. After a thorough review, the court ultimately concluded that counsel’s actions did not amount to a Sixth Amendment violation. This Court agrees that the state court’s decision was neither “contrary to” nor did it “involve[ ] 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). Judge Towson properly applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 5.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the Supreme Court precedent for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, to Petitioner’s claim. A habeas petitioner is entitled to habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel when (1) counsel’s performance falls below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors and omissions, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Under the first prong, Petitioner must show first that “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed ... by the Sixth Amendment.” Id. The “petitioner must identify specific acts or omissions that were not the result of reasonable professional judgment.” Brownlee v. Haley, 306 F.3d 1043, 1059 (11th Cir.2002). This bar is very high. If Petitioner establishes the first prong, he must then show that “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense,” which “requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial whose result is reliable.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Petitioner must “affirmatively prove prejudice” by showing that counsel’s errors “actually had an adverse effect on the defense .... [There must be a] reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.” Brownlee, 306 F.3d at 1059 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693, 104 S.Ct. 2052). In addition to satisfying Strickland, Petitioner must also show that, in rejecting his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “the state court ‘applied Strickland to the facts of his case in an objectively unreasonable manner.’ ” Rutherford v. Crosby, 385 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir.2004) (quoting Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 699, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002)). In considering ineffective assistance claims, courts must remember to evaluate an attorney’s performance from his or her perspective at the time of trial or sentencing phase, not through hindsight. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Grayson, 257 F.3d at 1216. Likewise, the court’s determination should be based on “the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Finally, although Petitioner’s claims focus on what trial counsel could have or should have done, the law requires the court to look, instead, first to what the lawyer did in fact and determine whether those actions were reasonable. Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1320 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc). Based on the above, Petitioner claims that his counsel violated the Strickland standard, thereby depriving him of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Petitioner asserts several grounds to support his claim. 1. Original Indictment Petitioner claims that counsel’s failure to offer the guilty plea as mitigating evidence before the close of evidence was severely prejudicial. Petitioner claims his most persuasive mitigating evidence was the indictment showing his guilty plea, and because counsel failed to offer it into evidence, the jury likely viewed his mitigation claims as an attempt at misrepresentation. Petitioner’s Brief, p. 37. The evidence does not support Petitioner’s conclusion. Judge Towson held, “the record shows that trial counsel did try to offer the guilty plea into evidence. In fact, trial counsel objected when the trial court decided not to send out the ‘original’ indictment. Trial counsel again tried to have original [sic] indictment submitted to rebut a presumption raised in the State’s closing argument. It was not trial counsel’s ineffectiveness which kept out this information ...” Towson Order, p. 41. This Court presumes that Judge Tow-son’s factual findings are correct and Petitioner has not put forth clear and convincing evidence otherwise. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Counsel made several references to the fact that Petitioner pled guilty and adamantly objected to the jury not seeing the original indictment. See Transcript from Nov. 18, 1989, pp. 1823-31. Therefore, counsel’s alleged failure to object to the jury not seeing the actual indictment is not grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel. 2. Mitigation Petitioner claims counsel’s failure to search for and introduce Petitioner’s life history was fatal error because that information would have explained Petitioner’s drug addiction and actions on the night he killed Mr. Pala. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held, although no absolute duty exists to investigate particular facts or a certain defense, “in preparing for a death penalty case, ‘[a]n attorney has a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation, including an investigation of the defendant’s background, for possible mitigating evidence.’ ” Grayson, 257 F.3d at 1225 (quoting Porter v. Singletary, 14 F.3d 554, 557 (11th Cir.1994)). “However, counsel is not required to investigate and present all mitigating evidence in order to be reasonable.” Id. (citing Tarver v. Hopper, 169 F.3d 710, 715 (11th Cir.1999)). The focus is not on “whether counsel should have presented a mitigation case. Rather, [courts should] focus on whether the investigation supporting counsel’s decision not to introduce mitigating evidence of [Petitioner’s] background was itself reasonable.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 522-23, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (finding counsel’s decision not to expand his investigation beyond the pre-sentence investigation report (“PSI”) and Department of Social Services (“DSS”) records fell short of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) and state professional standards, which, at the time, included the preparation of a social history report). The decision is based on “the totality of the evidence—‘both that adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced in the habeas proceeding[s].’ ” Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 536, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (citing Williams, 529 U.S. at 397-98, 120 S.Ct. 1495). The Supreme Court also explained in Wiggins, “[i]n assessing the reasonableness of an attorney’s investigation, ... a court must consider not only the quantum of evidence already known to counsel, but also whether the known evidence would lead a reasonable attorney to investigate further.” 539 U.S. at 527, 123 S.Ct. 2527. This is because “ ‘strategic choices made after a less than complete investigation are reasonable’ only to the extent that ‘reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation.’ ” Id. at 533, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. 2052). In Petitioner’s case, counsel hired a psychiatrist to evaluate Petitioner, provide observations, and determine whether Petitioner suffered from any mental deficiencies. The psychiatrist reported that no psychiatric defenses were available. Counsel also employed two investigative agencies to interview potential mitigation witnesses. Finally, counsel and investigators interviewed everyone Petitioner thought may be helpful in mitigation, including friends, family, co-workers, and former co-workers. Transcript from Jan. 28, 1999, p. 140. The final package consisted of sixteen mitigation witnesses, ranging from family members and coworkers to previous supervisors and members of the prison ministry. Counsel testified that Petitioner lied to him on several occasions, which made counsel’s job very difficult for obvious reasons. Id. at 276-77. In fact, counsel testified that its theory of the case had to change several times because Petitioner’s story kept changing. The situation became so difficult that counsel finally had Petitioner take a polygraph test to determine when and if Petitioner was telling the truth. Transcript from Mar. 3, 1994, p. 116. Finally, Petitioner refused to allow counsel to pursue a psychological defense or hire further experts. Based on this refusal, counsel claimed his strategy at the sentencing trial was to “humanize” Petitioner and thought presenting Petitioner as having a “sorry life” would backfire. See Transcript from Jan. 28,1999, pp. 235, 248. According to counsel, Petitioner never indicated that drugs had anything to do with the crime, he did not think Petitioner had a drug addiction, and presentation of drug use to a jury was risky. Id. at 144. Counsel’s conclusions were based on his opinion and experience that use of drug addiction and mental health experts were not good tactics because they, too, could “backfire” with a jury. As for his family background, Petitioner never revealed any negative information about his family background and life history, even to the psychiatrist. No other signs pointed to a troubled background. All of this evidence shows that counsel, in fact, did conduct a reasonable investigation into Petitioner’s background, which is all that Strickland requires. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (stating that counsel has a duty to investigate to a reasonable extent). Given Petitioner’s intelligence and participation in the defense, counsel’s reliance on him was reasonable. The duty to investigate “does not include a requirement to disregard a mentally competent client’s sincere and specific instructions about an area of defense.” Rutherford, 385 F.3d at 1313 (citing Gilreath v. Head, 234 F.3d 547, 550 n. 10 (11th Cir.2000) (“We readily conclude that trial counsel — by relying on Petitioner’s instruction not to present mitigating mental health and alcohol abuse evidence — did not perform in an unreasonable manner.”)). See also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (When counsel has “reason to believe that pursuing certain investigations would be fruitless ... counsel’s failure to pursue those investigations may not later be challenged as unreasonable.”); Johnston v. Singletary, 162 F.3d 630, 642 (11th Cir.1998) (“[T]he reasonableness of counsel’s actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant’s own statements or actions.”) (internal marks and citations omitted); Hance v. Zant, 981 F.2d 1180, 1183—84 (11th Cir.1993) (finding that counsel’s agreeing to capital defendant’s wishes not to contact his family did not amount to ineffective assistance under the circumstances); Tafero v. Wainwright, 796 F.2d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir.1986) (“[A] defendant’s decision communicated to his counsel as to who he wants to leave out of the investigation, while not negating the duty to investigate, does limit the scope of the investigation.”); United States v. King, 1997 WL 223057, at *3 (N.D.Ill.1997) (holding that because defendant did not present his trial attorneys with any concrete reason to suspect a conspiracy amongst family members, trial counsel should not be faulted for failing to investigate). Based on all of the above, counsel’s performance during mitigation cannot be deemed inadequate under Strickland. Therefore, an analysis of whether counsel’s conduct prejudiced Petitioner’s case is not necessary. In the alternative, Petitioner contends that the state habeas court’s decision was contrary to well established law because, “faced with materially similar facts, the state court came to a contrary conclusion than that reached by the U.S. • Supreme Court.” Petitioner’s Brief, p. 33. Petitioner cites Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986), as support for his position. However, Kimmelman is distinguishable from the instant action on many grounds. Kimmelman involved counsel’s failure to “litigate a Fourth Amendment claim competently.” Id. at 375, 106 S.Ct. 2574. Counsel was unaware of evidence illegally seized from petitioner’s home because he had failed to request any discovery from the prosecution. Counsel also prepared for trial under the mistaken beliefs that a request for inculpatory evidence was not necessary because the state was obliged to turn over all such evidence and that the victim’s preference determined whether the state proceeded to trial following' an indictment. Id. at 385, 106 S.Ct. 2574. In the instant action, Petitioner’s counsel did not make any similarly egregious mistakes. Wiggins, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471, is also distinguishable. There, the Supreme Court held that counsel was ineffective for not investigating further than the PSI and DSS reports as to petitioner’s troubled childhood. Counsel subsequently failed to present any evidence of petitioner’s life history or family background in spite of counsel’s opening argument, which promised the jury that they would “ ‘hear that [petitioner] has had a difficult life ... [b]ut he’s worked. He’s tried to be a productive citizen.’ ” Id. at 515, 123 S.Ct. 2527. Counsel’s performance was unreasonable even in light of the heavy deference applied to counsel’s performance because he neither investigated nor made a reasonable decision not to investigate. Id. at 515-16, 123 S.Ct. 2527. In the instant action, counsel’s decision not to investigate further into. Petitioner’s family history and background was reasonable given the lack of information that would have made such investigation necessary, Petitioner’s participation in providing other mitigating witnesses, as well as Petitioner’s request that counsel not contact any further experts. 3. Forensic Testimony Petitioner also asserts as error counsel’s cross-examination of several of the State’s witnesses. He challenges Judge Towson’s findings that trial counsel’s failure to interview experts Byron Dawson and Kelly Fite was reasonable; counsel’s failure to employ experts was reasonable; counsel’s decision to not cross-examine the experts was reasonable; and experts Fite and Dawson did not testify outside the scope of their knowledge. Petitioner’s Brief, p. 41. In support of his claim that counsel’s failure to interview and challenge the designation of experts Fite and Dawson is proof of ineffective assistance, Petitioner points to the ABA Guidelines, which serve as “guides to determine what is reasonable.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The guidelines state that trial counsel “must be experienced in the utilization of expert witnesses and evidence, such as psychiatric and forensic evidence, and must be able to challenge zealously the prosecution’s evidence and experts through effective cross-examination.” American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, Introduction (2003). Whether or not counsel’s cross-examination was “effective” must be decided on a case-by-case basis. In the instant action, with respect to Mr. Dawson, the State’s medical examiner, counsel testified that he did not think it was tactically sound to discredit the expert’s testimony when he was not able— per Petitioner’s directions — to counter Mr. Dawson’s testimony with his own expert’s testimony. Doing as much would “leave[ ] something hanging and put[] more of a credibility strain on the case.... [a case where] you’ve got a man’s life at stake who has confessed to the murder numerous times.” Transcript from Jan. 28, 1999, pp. 181,189. As for Mr. Fite, a Georgia Bureau of Investigations officer, counsel had worked with him on several occasions, knew he was honest, and thought the time interviewing him before the hearing would be wasted because Mr. Fite would give the same testimony on the stand. Id. at 190. Counsel also explained that he was cautious as to which and how many objections he made because objecting often, having the jury excused frequently, and playing “technical defenses,” could turn a jury off. Id. at 194. Petitioner states that counsel’s conclusions were unreasonable. Petitioner also claims that the physical evidence and forensic testimony were crucial to the State’s proof of aggravating circumstances, which led to Petitioner’s death sentence. This Court does not disagree. However, counsel’s limitation of objections and his inability to rebut the State’s experts with counter expert witnesses of his own were reasonable tactical decisions to which this Court must defer. Furthermore, the state habeas court made a factual determination, presumed correct, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e), that neither Mr. Fite nor Mr. Dawson testified outside their area of expertise. See Tow-son Order, p. 44. Petitioner has not presented clear and convincing evidence otherwise. Petitioner also argues that counsel’s failure to present other experts, such as forensic pathologists, ballistics experts, crime scene reconstructionists, and other mental health experts is grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel. Even though Petitioner made it very clear, “flat out ... no more experts,” see Transcript from Jan. 28, 1999, p. 180, he contends that counsel was ineffective because he never explained the importance of expert testimony or how each expert could contribute to his defense. Petitioner’s Brief, p. 43. Petitioner does not cite any authority for this additional duty. Petitioner also claims that his statement prohibiting the use of any more experts was only in reference to mental health experts. Counsel’s failure to so interpret the statement when Petitioner did not give him any reason to do so was not unreasonable and not proof of his ineffectiveness. Finally, Petitioner alleges that counsel’s decision not to interview Warren Tillman and stipulate to his expert witness status are grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel. These decisions allegedly limited counsel’s ability to effectively cross-examine him. Mr. Tillman testified for the State that the paint found in the store and on Mr. Pala matched the paint found on Petitioner. Petitioner has not put forth any evidence that Mr. Tillman’s testimony was improper or in any way prejudicial. Therefore, counsel’s alleged failure to effectively cross-examine him is not grounds for habeas relief. 4. Closing Arguments Petitioner claims that trial counsel unreasonably failed to object to the prosecutor’s closing statement: “the Bible says that you shall be put to death if you kill somebody ...” Crowe, 458 S.E.2d at 811. The Georgia Supreme Court held, and Judge Towson agreed, that the reference was a legitimate effort to counter the religiously affiliated witnesses Petitioner put forth, and that, even if the statements were improper, they did not change the result of trial. Crowe, 458 S.E.2d at 811. In the Eleventh Circuit, “habeas relief is due to be granted for improper prosecutorial argument at sentencing only where there has been a violation of due process, and that occurs if, but only if, the improper argument rendered the sentencing stage trial fundamentally unfair.” Romine v. Head, 253 F.3d 1349, 1366 (11th Cir.2001) (citing Brooks v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 1383, 1400 (11th Cir.1985) (en banc), vacated on other grounds, 478 U.S. 1016, 106 S.Ct. 3325, 92 L.Ed.2d 732 (1986), reinstated, 809 F.2d 700 (1987) (en banc)); Spivey v. Head, 207 F.3d 1263, 1275 (11th Cir.2000); Drake v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 1449, 1458 (11th Cir.1985) (en banc). “An improper prosecutorial argument has rendered a capital sentencing proceeding fundamentally unfair if there is a reasonable probability that the argument changed the outcome, ... which is to say that absent the argument the defendant would not have received a death sentence.” Romine, 253 F.3d at 1366 (citing Brooks, 762 F.2d at 1401). Based on this precedent, the Court’s first step is to determine whether the prosecutor’s statement was improper. Id. The phrase, “the Bible says that you shall be put to death if you kill somebody ...is improper. Petitioner had already pled guilty and thus the jury’s only task was to determine the proper sentence. The prosecutor’s statement directly addressed this issue by relying on the Bible’s alleged teaching that death is a mandatory penalty for murder. Id. (citing Cobb v. Wainwright, 609 F.2d 754, 755 n. 2 (5th Cir.1980) (“[T]he prosecutor made several clearly objectionable ... remarks. For example, at one point in his argument, the prosecutor resorted to the Bible [and] told the jury that under its teachings there was no reason to show the defendants mercy.”)). See also Brooks, 762 F.2d at 1410 (“Because the jury is empowered to exercise its discretion in determining punishment, it is wrong for the prosecutor to undermine that discretion by implying that he, or another high authority, has already made the careful decision required.”). Nonetheless, the statement did not render Petitioner’s sentencing hearing unfair. To determine whether a sentencing proceeding is “unfair,” the Eleventh Circuit applies a prejudice standard that asks if, absent the prosecutor’s statements, there is a reasonable probability that the result would not have been a death sentence. Romine, 253 F.3d at 1366. In making this prejudice determination, the court must “examine the entire context of the judicial proceeding.” Id. (citing Brooks, 762 F.2d at 1400). While it is impossible to know whether the prosecutor’s statements appealed to any one juror in particular, “[t]he possibility always exists that some jurors will be at least as impressed by Biblical authority as by the authority of a court or a legal scholar.” Id. at 1368. On the other hand, Romine involved a case “saturated with evidence relating to religion ... [including] a hell fire and brimstone mini-sermon the effect of which was to tell them that regardless of the law of Georgia, they ought to follow the law of God, as the prosecutor interpreted it.” Id. at 1369. Petitioner’s case is distinguishable. The prosecutor heavily relied on religion only during closing argument, and while not appropriate, “ ‘isolated or ambiguous or unintentional remarks must be viewed with lenity.... [A] brief remark is less likely to cause prejudice.’ ” Id. (quoting Brooks, 1&2, F.2d at 1405). While the prosecutor’s statements were improper and the trial court could have given a curative instruction about its applicability, the statement did not rise to the level of undermining confidence in the sentencing result. The Court also notes that the issue of whether to object to an argument heavily implicates the judgment of counsel. Defense counsel may have believed that raising an objection would have been counterproductive. Indeed, defense counsel himself made Biblical references during his closing argument. This Court concludes that counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s remark was not unreasonable and that it did not prejudice Petitioner. 5. Conflict of Interest Petitioner also asserts that Bergin was ineffective because he was operating under a conflict of interest created by accepting funds from Petitioner’s mother, rather than asking the State for financial assistance. Petitioner claims that counsel’s acceptance of funds from Ms. Crowe kept him from conducting a full family history investigation for fear that Petitioner’s mother would dismiss him or refuse to pay the balance of his fee if the “true nature of the mother-child relationship was [] explored.” Petitioner’s Brief, p. 49. Petitioner claims that Judge Towson’s decision to the contrary was an unreasonable factual determination under § 2254(d)(2) because it ignored evidence that substance abuse was an issue at trial. This Court disagrees. In the Eleventh Circuit, a conflict of interest rises to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel when “a lawyer has inconsistent interests.” Freund v. Butterworth, 165 F.3d 839, 859 (11th Cir.1999) (internal citations omitted). See also Brownlee, 306 F.3d at 1064. If Petitioner can show that his counsel operated under a conflict of interest, he must then show that the conflict “adversely affected” counsel’s performance. Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 174, 122 S.Ct. 1237, 152 L.Ed.2d 291 (2002). In order to prove adverse effect, Petitioner must show (1) a plausible alternative defense strategy that counsel might have pursued; (2) that the alternative strategy was reasonable; and (3) some link between the actual conflict and the decision to forego that strategy. Brownlee, 306 F.3d at 1064 n. 17 (citing Freund, 165 F.3d at 860). Petitioner cannot satisfy the third prong. Payment by a third party does not, per se, create an actual conflict of interest as defined in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). See Devaney v. United States, 47 F.Supp.2d 130, 133 (D.Mass.1999) (citing Model Rule Prof. Conduct 1.8(f)); Narvaez v. United States, 1998 WL 255429 (S.D.N.Y.1998); United States v. Zhadanov, 1998 WL 633698 (E.D.Pa.1998); King, 1997 WL 223057. In Cuyler, the Supreme Court explained that “until a defendant shows his counsel actively represented conflicting interests, he has not established the constitutional predicate for his claim of ineffective assistance.” 446 U.S. at 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708. In the instant case, Petitioner argues that counsel felt beholden to his mother and avoided investigating his family history for fear of embarrassing or angering her, thus he did not pursue a vigilant defense. No evidence supports this contention. Counsel was not, in any way, representing Ms. Crowe’s conflicting interest. To the contrary, her interests and Petitioner’s were the same — to avoid the death penalty. Transcript from Jan. 29, 1999, p. 273. Petitioner does not put forth any evidence that suggests counsel was aware of Ms. Crowe’s interest in avoiding a thorough review of Petitioner’s family history. In fact, counsel testified that Ms. Crowe supported . counsel’s attempt to pursue a psychological expert, but Petitioner refused. See Transcript from Jan. 28 & 29,1999, pp. 69, 280. Counsel interviewed Petitioner’s mother up to six times, he asked Petitioner to tell him everything he could remember about his life, he hired investigators, and he interviewed friends, co-workers, and other family members. Therefore, even though Petitioner did not tell him about the alleged abuse he suffered as a child, his mother’s disturbing behavior, and his drug and alcohol use, no grounds exist to find counsel was operating under a conflict of interest caused by Petitioner’s mother’s financial support. Furthermore, even if a conflict existed, Petitioner has not shown that the conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance. Counsel spent some 200-250 hours working on Petitioner’s case after he entered a guilty plea against counsel’s advice. See Towson’s Order, p. 40. Prior to Petitioner’s plea, counsel spent up to 600 hours preparing for the guilt/innocence phase of trial. Id. This amount of time and energy is not consistent with a lack of diligence. As further proof of an alleged conflict of interest, Petitioner claims that, even though he did not tell counsel about his unfortunate childhood, counsel should have employed a social worker or mental health expert to basically flush out these facts. According to Petitioner, counsel’s failure to do so is evidence of the conflict of interest he was laboring under while defending Petitioner. This contention is also without merit. Counsel, in fact, did hire a psychiatrist to evaluate Petitioner. Dr. Cassandra Newkirk concluded that no psychiatric defenses were available for Petitioner’s case, rather that Petitioner was a “coldblooded murderer.” Transcript from Jan. 28,1999, p. 338. Also telling in a conflict of interest determination is the fact that, as counsel explained, he had to obtain Petitioner’s permission, not his mother’s, to consult and pay Dr. Newkirk. Id. at 335. Based on the above, it is clear that counsel’s acceptance of fees from Petitioner’s mother did not create a conflict of interest which rendered counsel’s performance ineffective. 6. Fee Disputes Based on the same facts as above, Petitioner contends that Judge Towson was also wrong to conclude that there was no evidence of a fee dispute between counsel and his assistant, Randy Siegel; counsel and Petitioner’s mother; and between counsel and Petitioner and his mother’s estate following her death. Petitioner also objects to Judge Towson’s reliance on counsel’s testimony that the fee dispute did not impact his representation. Petitioner’s Brief, p. 50. Petitioner contends that the evidence proves that these monetary disputes harmed counsel’s representation of Petitioner, and Judge Towson’s decision was an unreasonable determination of the facts. Petitioner cites absolutely no support for these conclusions. As stated above, a fee dispute does not, per se, create an actual conflict of interest as described in Cuyler, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). See Devaney, 47 F.Supp.2d at 133 (citing Model Rule Prof. Conduct 1.8(f)); Narvaez, 1998 WL 255429, at *3; Zhadanov, 1998 WL 633698; United States v. O’Neil, 118 F.3d 65, 71 (2d Cir.1997) (“[W]e presume that counsel will continue to execute his professional and ethical duty to zealously represent his client, notwithstanding [a] fee dispute.”). Again, counsel spent some 200-250 hours on Petitioner’s case after Petitioner pled guilty. He obtained and interviewed witnesses, spent considerable amounts of time with Petitioner in an attempt to discover more mitigating evidence, and overall, did not exhibit a lack of diligence that can be attributed to a fee dispute. Petitioner’s conclusory statements otherwise are without merit. 7. Crime Reenactment Petitioner claims that counsel’s failure to object to the reenactment of the crime at Wickes Lumber is cause for a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner’s Brief, p. 51. This contention, however, is inconsistent with the record. Counsel objected to a crime scene visit, see Transcript from Nov. 14, 1989, p. 1002, he “strenuously” objected to the State’s suggestion that Mr. Fite trace the path that the victim took from the cash register to where he fell, id. at 1003, and counsel specifically requested, and Judge James agreed, that Mr. Fite would not lay on the ground, id. at 1004. Judge James specifically precluded the State from reenacting the crime at the jury’s viewing of the scene; “[t]he Court does not want a reenactment of the crime ... [or any] theatrics.” Id. at 1004-05. Therefore, Petitioner’s claim that counsel did not object to the alleged reenactment is without factual support. Overall, applying a reasonableness standard and a measure of deference to counsel’s judgment, this Court concludes that the assistance rendered Petitioner by trial counsel, Michael Bergin, was not constitutionally deficient. IV. Claims Raised on Direct Appeal and Barred in 2000 State Habeas Petition under Elrod In Georgia, if Petitioner’s claims were litigated on direct appeal, they are barred from state habeas review because “[a]fter an appellate review the same issues will not be reviewed on habeas corpus.” Elrod v. Ault, 231 Ga. 750, 204 S.E.2d 176, 176 (1974). Several of Petitioner’s claims that the Georgia Supreme Court determined on the merits were subsequently dismissed by the state habeas court based on Elrod. As noted in the January Order, these claims are subject to federal review subject to the restrictions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Crowe, 356 F.Supp.2d at 1348. Section 2254(d) requires a federal court to determine whether the state court’s decision 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. § 2254(d). Each claim is discussed in turn. 1. Interference with Right to Counsel The Sixth Amendment provides in relevant part: “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” U.S. Const, amend. VI. Petitioner claims that Judge James and the State, via Sheriff Lee, interfered with his Sixth Amendment right to counsel in two ways. First, by allegedly participating in a scheme to coerce Petitioner to dismiss counsel and plead guilty, and second, by failing to intervene after learning that Sheriff Lee took an allegedly unconstitutional statement from Petitioner. Petitioner’s Brief, p. 6. a. Facts The facts, as established by trial and hearing transcripts as well as orders handed down by Judges James and Emerson of the Douglas County Superior Court and the Georgia Supreme Court, are as follows. This Court defers to the facts unless Petitioner puts forth clear and convincing evidence otherwise. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). On March 4, 1988, at Petitioner’s initial appearance, Judge James told him that he did not have to give any statements to a law enforcement officer or agency, and if he did, those statements would be used against him. See Extraordinary Motion Order, p. 2. Then, on March 31, 1988, Judge James explained that he had received a phone call from Petitioner “expressing] certain concerns,” a letter from the District Attorney indicating conversations between Petitioner and Sheriff Lee concerning Petitioner’s representation, and a second call from Petitioner confirming the hearing. See Crowe, 458 S.E.2d at 805. Petitioner claims that by accepting the calls and letter and not reporting them to counsel immediately, Judge James interfered with his attorney-client relationship. The Georgia Supreme Court held that Petitioner initiated these contacts, Judge James reported them to counsel within days, and thus Petitioner was not prejudiced by the communications. Id. Petitioner contends this conclusion was unreasonable in light of the facts because the state supreme court did not consider Sheriff Lee’s communications with Petitioner. Petitioner’s Brief, p. 7. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner is mistaken. This Court agrees that, without more, Judge James’ accepting Petitioner’s phone calls and subsequently reporting them to counsel did not interfere with Petitioner’s right to counsel. See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 485, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) (“[Njothing in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would prohibit the police from merely listening to [defendant’s] voluntary, volunteered statements and using them against him at the trial.”). Petitioner’s interactions with Sheriff Lee, however, are more troubling. After being indicted, Petitioner was held at the Douglas County jail. While there, Petitioner requested to meet with Sheriff Lee. Sheriff Lee agreed and Petitioner gave him a third, videotaped statement on March 25, 1989. Transcript from Mar. 3, 1994, p. 247. Sheriff Lee did not remember trying to contact Petitioner’s counsel before agreeing to meet with Petitioner, see Transcript from Mar. 3, 1994, p. 239; however, during their meeting, “[t]he Sheriff pointed out there was a phone sitting before the defendant, and he would allow him to call his lawyer if he wanted to.” Extraordinary Motion Order, p. 22. During the meeting, Sheriff Lee asked questions and had Petitioner clarify his statements about the crime. Id. at 23. Sheriff Lee also testified that when he met with Petitioner to obtain this third statement Petitioner asked him, “if I [Sheriff Lee] was in his shoes what would I do.” The Sheriff responded, “I said well, David, knowing the evidence that’s against you, if I was you they couldn’t chain me down in court. I’d get up and say I’m guilty and ask the jury to have mercy on my soul and save my life.... I would have tried to talk my way into saving my life.” Transcript from Mar. 3, 1994, pp. 229, 244. Sheriff Lee could not remember if he made that statement before or after Petitioner gave his statement and thus it is unclear whether the Sheriff made that statement before or after he read Petitioner his Miranda rights. Id. at 254. During their meeting, Sheriff Lee told Petitioner, “[s]ome of the things that you’ve alluded to, I’ve told you is none of my business and I really — it’s just because you wanted to tell me; I cannot advise you; is that correct?” Petitioner responded, “Yes; that’s correct.” Transcript from Nov. 16, 1989, p. 1355 (playing third videotaped statement for jury). Petitioner also claims that Sheriff Lee and Petitioner exchanged letters during April and October of 1989, which demonstrates that the Sheriff was involved in Petitioner’s decision to plead guilty. Sheriff Lee “tr[ied] to respect” lawyers’ wishes that their clients not talk to the Sheriff while in custody, see Transcript from Mar. 3, 1994, p. 229; however, he did not follow protocol when talking with Petitioner even though he knew that Petitioner was represented by counsel. Id. at 245. In fact, Sheriff Lee admitted that, “[kjnowing the responsibility as sheriff, it would be unusual for me to [talk with an inmate in custody without advising him of his right to have his attorney present].” Id. at 235. The Sheriff unequivocally stated he did not tell Petitioner anything negative about counsel. Id. at 240. At his hearing on March 31, 1989, Petitioner explained that “Sheriff Lee, I believe, understood my feelings, and I had express [sic] to Sheriff Lee that my attorney did not know that I had requested to make a statement with him. I’m sure that [counsel], thinking of my best interest, would have objected to me doing so; but that was my decision.” Transcript from Mar. 31,1989, p. 6. When Petitioner entered his guilty plea on May 5,1989, he stated that he was “not under the influence of any drugs or alcohol or any pressure, coercion, or anything else.” Transcript from May 5, 1989, p. 31. Ultimately, Judge Emerson found “[t]here is no evidence that Lee overtook the will of the defendant ... [or otherwise] deprived the defendant of his right to counsel.” Extraordinary Motion Order, pp. 26-28. Rather, “defendant [] acted independently and chose to ignore the advice of counsel.” Id. at 26. “The record is clear that this plea was entered by a well-educated, well-informed, thoroughly counseled adult who labored under no mental handicap.” Id. at 31. The Georgia Supreme Court agreed and noted that Petitioner never objected to the use of his third videotaped confession to the Sheriff, and in fact relied on it heavily in mitigation. Crowe, 458 S.E.2d at 799. The court was especially persuaded by the fact that Petitioner initiated the contact with Sheriff Lee. Id. at 805-06. Petitioner objects to these conclusions. b. Application A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is critical. The right attaches at or after the initiation of adversarial proceedings “whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.” Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977) (internal citations omitted). Petitioner need not request counsel for the right to exist. Id. at 404, 97 S.Ct. 1232. Nor is a Sixth Amendment violation dependent on a formal interrogation. See Fellers v. United States, 540 U.S. 519, 524, 124 S.Ct. 1019, 157 L.Ed.2d 1016 (2004). Once the right attaches, law enforcement officials may not use any “deliberately elicited” and incriminating statements petitioner makes without the presence or waiver of counsel. Brewer, 430 U.S. at 399, 97 S.Ct. 1232. To prove that petitioner has waived his right to counsel, the state must show that the petitioner did so knowingly and intelligently. Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 633, 106 S.Ct. 1404, 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1986); Edwards, 451 U.S. at 482, 101 S.Ct. 1880. Petitioner claims that Sheriff Lee’s actions were in violation of the Supreme Court’s principles established in Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964); Brewer, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424; and United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). This Court disagrees. According to the Supreme Court, “ ‘from the time of their arraignment until the beginning of their trial, when consultation, thorough-going investigation and preparation (are) vitally important, the defendants ... (are) as much entitled to such aid (of counsel) during that period as at the trial itself.’ ” Massiah, 377 U.S. at 205, 84 S.Ct. 1199 (citing Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 57, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932)). In Massiah, petitioner was free on bail and made incriminating statements to a fellow co-defendant, turned government informant. A federal agent installed a radio transmitter in the informant’s car and then sat in a nearby car with a receiving device to hear petitioner’s incriminating statements. The federal agent then testified as to petitioner’s statements. The Court held that “petitioner was denied the basic protections of [the Sixth Amendment] when there was used against him at his trial evidence of his own incriminating words, which federal agents had deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted and in the absence of his counsel.” Id. at 206, 84 S.Ct. 1199. The Court applied the “deliberately elicited” test in a subsequent case, Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). In Henry, the Court faced another Sixth Amendment claim involving incriminating statements made by the petitioner to an undisclosed and undercover government informant who was also petitioner’s cell-mate. The Court found particularly persuasive three factors: the agent was acting under instructions as a paid government informant, the agent was no more than a fellow inmate of petitioner, and petitioner was in custody and under indictment at the time he was engaged in conversation by the informant. Id. at 270, 100 S.Ct. 2183. The Court held that even if the government did not intend for the informant to take affirmative steps to secure incriminating information, “he must have known that such propinquity likely would lead to that result,” especially given the fact that the informant’s fee was contingent on furnishing information. The Court also recognized the “powerful psychological inducements to reach for aid when a person is in confinement.” Id. at 274, 100 S.Ct. 2183. Ultimately, the Court held, “[b]y intentionally creating a situation likely to induce [petitioner] to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel, the Government violated [petitioner’s] Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” Id. Finally, in Brewer, petitioner abducted a girl in Des Moines, Iowa, and was later arrested in Davenport, Iowa. He retained counsel in both locations and both attorneys told petitioner not to speak with officials until he consulted with his counsel in Des Moines. Officials transporting petitioner between cities agreed not to question him. En route from Davenport to Des Moines, police officers appealed to petitioner’s well-known, devout religious beliefs and asked him to locate the body so that the victim’s family could give her a “Christian burial.” Brewer, 430 U.S. at 393, 97 S.Ct. 1232. Petitioner eventually directed the police to the victim’s body and he was indicted for murder. The Court held that the officers “deliberately and designedly set out to elicit information from [petitioner] ... [because they] purposely sought during [petitioner’s] isolation from his lawyers to obtain as much incriminating information as possible.” Id. at 399, 97 S.Ct. 1232. The Court found it irrelevant that the incriminating statements in Massiah were “elicited surreptitiously” but were not in Brewer. Id. at 400, 97 S.Ct. 1232. Finally, the Court found petitioner did not waive his right to counsel; “[i]t is true that [petitioner] had been informed of his right to counsel. But waiver requires not merely comprehension but relinquishment, and [petitioner’s] consistent reliance upon the advice of counsel in dealing with the authorities refutes any suggestion that he waived that right.” Id. at 404, 97 S.Ct. 1232. Applied to the instant action, there can be no doubt that judicial proceedings had been initiated against Petitioner — he was in custody — so the question is not whether Petitioner had the right to counsel. The issues are (1) whether Sheriff Lee “deliberately and designedly set out to elicit information” from Petitioner, see Brewer, 430 U.S. at 399, 97 S.Ct. 1232; or deliberately used his position to secure incriminating information from Petitioner when counsel was not present, see Henry, 447 U.S. at 270, 100 S.Ct. 2183; and (2) whether Petitioner validly waived his right to counsel by contacting Sheriff Lee. Petitioner claims that his relationship with Sheriff Lee was one of trust and confidence and that the Sheriff manipulated him in order to induce Petitioner to fire counsel and plead guilty. Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Brief on the Issues, p. 10. However, Petitioner has not shown that Sheriff Lee “deliberately elicited” his third statement. Sheriff Lee simply being available and responding to Petitioner’s question is wholly separate from arranging for a paid informant to obtain incriminating information, planting covert devices in order to hear petitioner’s conversation with an undercover informant, or otherwise taking affirmative steps to ensure access to incriminating information. Even assuming as true Petitioner’s contention that Sheriff Lee’s treatment of Petitioner established a relationship of trust and confidence — a relationship that this Court is particularly skeptical of — it does not satisfy the Supreme Court’s test for unconstitutional interference with the right to counsel. Furthermore, Petitioner’s initiation of contact with Sheriff Lee on March 25, 1989 was a voluntarily waiver of his right to counsel. Waiver is a matter of federal law and the state must prove “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Brewer, 430 U.S. at 404, 97 S.Ct. 1232 (citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938)). The Supreme Court has explained that if a defendant initiates contact with authorities, “nothing in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would prohibit the police from merely listening to his voluntary, volunteered statements and using them against him at the trial.” Edwards, 451 U.S. at 485, 101 S.Ct. 1880. See also Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 471, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981) (“ “Volunteered statements ... are not barred by the Fifth Amendment.’ ”) (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)). In Jackson, 475 U.S. at 628, 106 S.Ct. 1404, the Court extended this principle to the Sixth Amendment by affirming the Michigan Supreme Court’s holding that once a defendant requests counsel, “the police may not conduct further interrogations until counsel has been made available to the accused, unless the accused initiates further communications, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” See also Henry, 447 U.S. at 273, 100 S.Ct. 2183 (“An accused speaking to a known Government agent is typically aware that his statements may be used against him. The adversary positions at that stage are well established; the parties are then ‘arms length’ adversaries.”). Waiver may also be inferred by Petitioner’s actions that were often contrary to counsel’s advice. While “consistent reliance upon the advice of counsel in dealing with the authorities” may refute any suggestion of waiver, see Brewer, 430 U.S. at 404, 97 S.Ct. 1232, the counter is true as well. Self v. Collins, 973 F.2d 1198, 1218-19 (5th Cir.1992). For example, Petitioner insisted counsel not hire more expert witnesses, he met with Sheriff Lee even though he knew counsel would discourage it, and, most drastically, he entered a guilty plea while counsel adamantly opposed his decision. There was never any allegation that Petitioner lost confidence in counsel, rather he just disregarded his advice. Id. Therefore, the evidence shows that neither Sheriff Lee nor Judge James violated Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. They did not “deliberately elicit” incriminating statements from him, and Petitioner waived his right to counsel by initiating contact with them and acting contrary to counsel’s advice. Petitioner’s claim to the contrary is denied. 2. Use of a “Cleansed” Indictment Petitioner claims that the trial court violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by presenting the jury with a false indictment. Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Brief, p. 12. Petitioner claims the trial court prevented him from offering proof of remorse and allowed the prosecution to “falsify a document contradicting [Petitioner’s] remorse.” Id. at 13. The Georgia Supreme Court’s rejection of this claim, says Petitioner, is factually unreasonable and contrary to and an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law under § 2254(d). Id. Petitioner adamantly contends that he entered his guilty plea pro se. This determination is a factual matter, one that the state courts relied on, and one this Court will defer to unless Petitioner puts forth