Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER BARBOUR, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Petitioner Gerald James Holland’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Having considered the Amended Petition, Response, Reply and the record of the proceedings below, as well as supporting and opposing authority, the Court finds that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is not well taken and should be denied. I. Factual Background and Procedural History This Amended Petition for Writ of Ha-beas Corpus arises out of the conviction and subsequent sentence of death imposed on Petitioner Gerald James Holland for the murder of Krystal D. King. During the course of this case, the Mississippi Supreme Court has published three separate opinions. First, in Holland v. State, 587 So.2d 848 (Miss.1991) (hereinafter “Holland I”), the court affirmed the conviction returned by the jury in the trial court, but reversed the sentence of death. After Holland I was rendered, Holland was again sentenced to death. Second, in Holland v. State, 705 So.2d 307 (Miss.1997) (hereinafter “Holland II”), the court' affirmed Holland’s second death sentence. Holland then filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief with the Mississippi Supreme Court. In the third and final published, opinion, Holland v. State, 878 So.2d 1 (Miss.2004) (hereinafter “Holland III”), the court denied that Petition. The facts of this case were efficiently set forth by the'Mississippi Supreme Court in the Holland cases described above. This Cohrt adopts the following facts from those reported opinions. • In September 1986, Gulfport police arrested 49-year-old Gerald James Holland for the murder of 15-year-old Krystal D. King.' The Harrison County Grand Jury subsequently indicted' Holland for capital murder and the underlying felony of rape. Venue changed to Adams County, where a jury in December 1987 found Holland guilty and sentenced him to death. Holland appealed. This Court affirms the conviction, overturns the death sentence, and remands for re-sentencing. Around 8:00 p.m. on a warm Thursday evening- — September 11, 1986 — 21-year-old Willie Boyer ran into his friend, Krystal King, at the Biloxi Beach Arcade. They “hung out” at the arcade until around 9:30 — at. which time they decided to stroll down to the beach and drink a six-pack of beer. Hours passed; midnight arrived; and the beer ran out. Krystal asked Willie to drive her to a house, unfamiliar to him, located on Burton Avenue in Gulfport. “Jerry” Holland, the appellant in this case, owned this house. Jerry Holland had not lived in Gulf-port all his life; he grew up in his birthplace, Los Angeles, with his mom, dad, two younger brothers, and a younger sister. His dad worked various jobs — as an electrician, truck mechanic, and other positions involving general maintenance. His mom was a homemaker. During the latter half of his teen-aged years, Holland moved with his family to Memphis where he completed his high-school education and received a “certificate of credits.” He left home at the age of twenty-one, and survived by working odd jobs. Holland explained: “[A]s I got older, I worked selling shoes, [became a] dental technician, and got into the electrical trade and stayed in it most of the time.” He accumulated over twenty years’ experience as an electrician — with some vocational training in this field. He “lived and worked in different places,” married and divorced twice, fathered five children, and ran afoul of the law. His criminal record includes convictions for burglary, larceny (auto theft), and rape of a child. He received a four-year term in a Texas prison for the rape; however, he served only one year before being paroled in 1976. He moved to Gulfport in 1981. Five years later, his and Krystal’s path crossed. By that time, in June or July 1986, Holland’s second wife had left him and taken their only child, Ina, with her. He was doing “contract work” on and off, and he had secured a roommate, 21-year-old Jerry Douglas, who introduced him to Krystal. On the night when Boyer drove Krystal to Burton Avenue, Holland had been drinking. This was not out of character for Holland. He had, as of August 1, become a drinker of at least a “six-pack” of beer a day — which he attributed to his “despondence” over his then-pending divorce. Boyer “remember[s] seeing [Holland] have ... one [beer] the whole time [he] was there,” and he “did not appear ... to be intoxicated or drunk.” Boyer himself “had a little bit of tequila and a beer,” and Krystal abstained completely. Meanwhile, Douglas and 19-year-old Carter Fugate, who had only recently moved in, slept soundly in their bedrooms; they had been in bed since 11:00 p.m. Boyer and Krystal’s visit lasted for a couple hours — during which time they watched “David Letterman” (a T.V. talk show) and listened to Holland small-talk about his divorce and the “divorce papers” which he had just received in the mail. Around 2:30 a.m., Boyer decided to leave, and Krystal remained behind. That was the last time Boyer saw her alive. Later in the night — between 3:20 and 3:30 a.m. — a “bump” awakened Douglas: DOUGLAS: I got up to go to the bathroom and to get a drink of water. I opened my bedroom door, the lights in the house was on, the front door standing wide open. I heard another noise outside the front door.... [I] looked through the ... door and I saw [Holland] bent over a black object on the ground. I looked at him and asked him, “Jerry, what is going on?” And he looked back up at me and says, “Go back to bed you don’t want to know.” Vol. IX, at 1401-02. Douglas then went into the kitchen and peered out the window: “I saw him roll[ ] this object into the back of his pick up truck and it made a loud thud sound when it hit the bed of the truck.” Holland returned to the house and, once inside, Douglas noticed that “he had a wild look on his face, his eyes were very big and glassy looking, and he was shaking.” At that point, Holland confessed: “My God, I killed her [Krystal], I killed her.” Id. at 1402. According to Douglas, Holland then explained that he and Krystal had had sex on the couch — after which she picked up his “razor-sharp” hunting knife located nearby and “started playing with it.” Holland and Krystal “winded up going into his bedroom and she [continued to] play with the knife.” Holland “took the knife from her and the next thing he knew it was in her chest.” “[H]e had stabbed her.” Douglas noted that Holland changed his story a few minutes later: Holland told him that he and Krystal were “wrestling around on the bed and [she] rolled off the bed and she fell onto the knife.” Holland also told him that “he mutilated the body to cover up the stab wounds” and to “make it look like a sex fiend had done it.” And he explained that he had placed the body in his truck “to ... bury it and try and cover everything up.” Douglas, under duress, accompanied Holland to bury Krystal’s body. Douglas later contacted the Gulfport Police Department and informed homicide detectives — including Wayne Payne and Glen Terrell — about the murder. Upon hearing Douglas’ story, the detectives acquired arrest and search warrants. At approximately 11:20 a.m. on September 12, 1986, a Gulfport Police Department S.W.A.T. Unit executed the warrants; the Unit entered Holland’s home, arrested him, and read him his Miranda rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1629-30, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 726 (1966). Detectives Payne and Terrell read Holland his rights three more times at the police station. Holland decided to waive them and confess. HOLLAND: We had ... I think we had sex. I was pretty much drunk.... I don’t even know if we did it or not and she was sitting in my lap and ... she saw my goddamned hunting knife. She started playing with it and she said let’s go to bed, Pm sleepy. I said are you going to sleep on the couch or do you want to sleep with me? She says I’ll sleep with you, so we went to the bedroom and she ... still had that goddamned knife in her hand. She was messing around with it like Zorro and all that bullshit. Typical kid at that point, I mean. I was dodging [the knife] ... and I grabbed her wrist and I was going to take it away from her before one of us got hurt with it and then I bumped into her chest and she says I’m dead. Then things got kind of black there for a minute. After confessing, Holland accompanied detectives to the burial site; they exhumed the body. An autopsy conducted by Dr. Paul McGarry revealed that Krystal had been brutally battered. McGarry described her injuries and their sequence. The first injuries were of the face, over the sides of the face, over the center of the face, the lips, over the nose, the eyes, they were more swollen, they were the most advanced. About the same time frame, next in line, the injuries of the arms, forearms, wrists, knees, shins. In that same time pattern, the injuries to the genital region, the stretching and scraping and tearing of the vagina and rectal tissues.... These are produced by forceful penetration of the vagina and rectum by a structure that is able to distend and stretch and tear in a symmetrical pattern. In other words, a round — a roughly round structure penetrating and stretching the vagina and stretching the anus and rectum.... In order to produce these injuries all the [sic] around the edge, it has to be something not as firm and unyielding as a metal or wooden instrument. It has to be a part of a human body or something with that same texture consistency[— like a], male sex organ. Next is the stab wound of the chest which went through the heart and through the aorta. Next after that is the ligature around the neck, the tying of the shirt tightly around the neck catching the hair in the shirt. Next is the blow to the back of the head which caught the hair that was in the ligature in that position and the last injury ... a pair of underpants ... was stuffed down the throat, down as far as the voice box.... Vol. XII, at 2184-85. McGarry stated that Krystal probably remained conscious during the entire ordeal until, finally, “she died of asphyxiation because of the ligature placed around her neck which closed off her airway, and the stuffing of clothing down her throat that obstructed her windpipe.” She probably did not die from the stab wound; indeed, she could have lived “as long as several hours” after being stabbed had she not been strangled. The stab wound did, however, contribute to her death. The mutilation of her genital area occurred post-mortem. On November 17, 1986, a grand jury returned an indictment against Holland for killing Krystal with “malice aforethought” while “engaged in the commission of the crime and felony of rape.” See MISS.CODE ANN. § 97-3-19(2)(e) (1972). The Grand Jury later re-indicted him for the same crime but as an habitual offender. Id. § 99-19-83 (1990 Supp.). On November 30, 1987 — after numerous hearings on pre-trial motions— Judge Kosta N. Vlahos held trial at the Adams County Circuit Court. Twelve days later, the trial concluded. The jury found Holland guilty as charged and sentenced him to death. Holland I, at 851-53 (ellipses and bracketed text in original). As stated above, in Holland I the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Holland’s conviction, but overturned the death sentence and remanded that issue to the trial court for a new hearing. The following facts are from Holland II. The first jury ... prematurely considered the death sentence before the mitigating and aggravating evidence was presented and before the instructions of the law were given by the trial court. This Court [in Holland I] held that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury had been violated, vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. [Holland I] at 872. Holland was granted a new sentencing hearing and again received the death penalty, which he is now appealing. He asserts that the trial court impermissibly restricted his mitigation evidence at rehearing. Therefore, the issue presented here concerns the scope of evidence admissible in mitigation after remand for resentencing before a new sentencing jury. Holland filed a bevy of motions which were denied by the trial judge with certain exceptions. The trial judge reserved evidentiary rulings on each piece of evidence until presented at the trial. As to aggravating factors, the trial judge submitted by instruction the following aggravators: (1) that the capital offense was committed while the defendant was engaged in the act of commission of the crime of rape, (2) that the capital offense was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest, and (3) that the capital offense was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. Additionally, the judge submitted to the jury the determination of whether Holland actually killed Krystal D. King, or attempted to kill her, or intended that the killing take place, or contemplated that lethal force would be employed in accordance with the capital sentencing procedure set forth in Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-101(7)(a-d) (1994 rev.); see Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 797, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 3376-77, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982). The resentencing jury imposed the death sentence, finding the existence of all three of the aggravating factors, as well as finding that Holland actually killed Krystal King, intended to kill and contemplated that lethal force would be employed. From his sentence of death, Holland appeals. Holland II, at 319. In Holland II, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the direct appeal of Holland’s second death sentence. After the decision in Holland II was rendered, but before the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief was filed with the Mississippi Supreme Court (addressed in Holland III), Holland filed with this Court an Application for Stay of Execution and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel to pursue federal habeas corpus relief. These pleadings were filed on December 15, 1998. Through an Order rendered by this Court on December 21, 1998, Holland’s execution was stayed and he was appointed counsel. However, the Court noted that Holland had not exhausted all of his state court remedies, which is a prerequisite for seeking federal habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the Court stayed this case pending exhaustion of state court remedies by Holland. The procedural path of Holland’s efforts to avoid the death penalty then returned to Mississippi state court, in which he filed his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. In Holland III, the Petition was denied. The subject Amended Petition for Writ of Ha-beas Corpus (hereinafter “Amended Petition”) was filed with this Court on January 18, 2005, under docket entry no. 30. The Amended Petition is now ripe for consideration. II. Holland’s Asserted Grounds for Habeas Corpus Relief Holland’s Amended Petition states twelve “claims” under which he contends that habeas corpus relief is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq. The claims are: claim 1: Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution where the Petitioner was denied his right to be tried by a fair and impartial , ' jury; claim 2: Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution where various prejudicial evidence having no probative value was improperly admitted at trial; claim 3: Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights'to the effective assistance of counsel under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution at the trial proceeding; claim 4: Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution where the prosecutor improperly excused two prospective jurors using peremptory challenges; claim 5: Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution where the Petitioner was denied his right to be re-senteñeed by a fair and ■■ impartial jury; claim 6: Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution at his capital re-sentencing hearing where the State was allowed to present evidence , of aggravating factors and proof of same beyond a reasonable doubt but the Petitioner was precluded from presenting any evidence . to rebut the evidence presented by the State; claim 7: Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and rights guaran- ■ teed by the Fifth,'Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution where the prosecutor improperly expressed his" personal opinions and invoked the position of his office to secure ■the death penalty against the Petitioner; claim 8: Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution where the Petitioner’s sentence based on the aggravator “especially heinous, atrocious and cruel” is unconstitutional; claim 9: Petitioner was denied his rights to the effective assistance of counsel under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution at the re-sentencing proceedings; claim 10: Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution where the Petitioner was denied funds for a neurological examination; claim 11: Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution where Petitioner has been subjected to the “death-row phenomenon” and the execution of Petitioner in this case serves no legitimate penological end; and claim 12: Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by the cumulative effect of the constitutional violations set forth in claims one through eleven above. Each of these claims is considered in the analyses which follow. III. Legal Standard The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (hereinafter “AEDPA”) became law on April 24, 1996. Under binding case law set forth by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, habeas petitions filed after the effective date of the AEDPA are governed by its provisions. Garcia v. Dretke, 388 F.3d 496 (5th Cir.2004) (citations omitted). The subject Amended Petition was filed on January 18, 2005. Therefore the Amended Petition must be judged under the standards of the AEDPA, and under case law interpretations of that Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) sets forth the two conditions under which a prayer for habe-as corpus relief may be granted. Section 2254(d) 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. (Emphasis added). As indicated by the plain language of § 2254(d), a petitioner has two avenues through which to pursue federal habeas relief. First, § 2254(d)(1) allows for relief if a federal court finds that a relevant decision of the convicting and/or sentencing state court hinged upon an unreasonable application of established federal law. “Under subpart (d)(1) of § 2254, ‘unreasonable’ does not mean merely incorrect. ‘[A]n application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent must be incorrect and unreasonable to warrant federal habe-as relief.’ ” Garcia, 388 F.3d at 500 (emphasis and bracketed text in original; internal and end citations omitted). The provisions of § 2254(d)(2) reflect the second method through which habeas relief can be sought. “Section 2254(d)(2) addresses pure questions of fact. Under this subsection, federal courts must give deference to state court findings of fact unless they are based on an unreasonable interpretation of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.” Brewer v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir.2006) (internal and end citations omitted). “To prevail under § 2254(d)(2), a petitioner must rebut by clear and convine-ing evidence the presumption-that a state court’s factual findings are correct.” Smith v. Dretke, 1-34 Fed.Appx. 674, 682 (5th Cir.2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)) (providing that “a determination of a factual issue -made by a State court shall be presumed to be" correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and conyincing evidence.”) (other citation omitted). In addition to The general habeas standard presented above, the Court must also set forth a standard for considering the effect of an unexhausted habeas claim. Section 2254(b)(1)(A) provides that an application for writ of habeas corpus may not be granted unless “the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State” where the underlying sentence and/or conviction occurred. .Section 2254(c) describes what a habeas applicant must do to adequately exhaust state court remedies. “An applicant shall not be deemed to have' exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under thé law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.” Id. In Bagwell v. Dretke, 372 F.3d 748 (5th Cir.2004), the Fifth Circuit expounded on, and further defined the provisions of § 2254(c), as follows: “To exhaust, a petitioner must have fairly presented the substance of his claim to the state courts.” Wilder v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir.2001) (citations and quotations omitted); see also Castillo v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351, 109 S.Ct. 1056, 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 380 (1989). “It-is not enough that all the •facts necessary to support the federal claim were before the state courts or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made.” Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6, 103 S.Ct. 276, 277, 74 L.Ed.2d 3 (1982); see also Moore v. Cain, 298 F.3d 361, 364-(5th Cir.2002). Rather, the -petitioner must ■ afford the state court a “fair opportunity to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon his constitutional claim.” Anderson, 459 U.S. at 6, 103 S.Ct. at 277. “Indeed, where petitioner advances in federal court an argument based on a legal theory distinct from that relied upon in the .state court, he fails to satisfy the exhaustion requirement.” Wilder, 274 F.3d at 259 (quoting Vela v. Estelle, 708 F.2d 954, 958 n. 5 (5th Cir.1983)); Henry, 327 F.3d at 432. Id. at 755. To summarize, in order to exhaust state court remedies a petitioner must present the claim in issue with specificity sufficient to allow the state court an opportunity to apply controlling law to the facts of the claim. The exhaustion requirement is not met if the petitioner advances a legal argument in his federal habeas petition that was not relied upon by the petitioner in the underlying state court proceedings. Further, the exhaustion requirement is not met if the petitioner advances a factual or evidentiary argument in his federal ha-beas petition that was not advanced in the state court proceedings below. That is, “a petitioner fails to exhaust available state remedies when he presents ‘material evi-dentiary support that was not presented to the state court.’ ‘[E]vidence that places the claims in a significantly different legal posture must first be presented to the state courts.’ ” Morris v. Dretke, 379 F.3d 199, 204-05 (5th Cir.2004) (emphasis and bracketed text in original; internal and end citations omitted). A federal court must determine whether “additional evidence fundamentally alters or merely supplements” the evidence presented to the state court. Id. at 205 (citation omitted). In short, if the federal habeas claim is “substantially different” from the state court claim in light of new evidence or facts presented to the federal court, then the petitioner has failed to exhaust available state court remedies. Kunkle v. Dretke, 352 F.3d 980, 988 (5th Cir.2003). If a petitioner fails to exhaust his state court remedies, then one course of action a federal court may take is to dismiss the habeas petition, without prejudice, which affords the petitioner an opportunity to return to state court and fulfill the exhaustion requirements of § 2254(b)(1)(A). A second option is offered by the provisions of § 2254(b)(2), which states “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State.” (Emphasis added). As indicated by the language of this code section, a federal court may deny an unexhausted claim on the merits, but such a claim may not be granted on the merits. A third option for dealing with an unex-hausted claim involves a situation in which the petitioner is in “procedural default” on the claim. In Bagwell, the Fifth Circuit held “[procedural default ... occurs when a prisoner fails to exhaust available state remedies and the court to which the petitioner would be required to present his claims in order to meet the exhaustion requirement would now find the claims procedurally barred.” Bagwell, 372 F.3d at 755 (emphasis added; citations omitted). If certain conditions are met, however, a procedural default is not detrimental. [A] court may resurrect a defaulted claim, and consider its merits, if [1] “the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or [2] demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Id. (emphasis added; citations omitted). To prove “cause,” a petitioner “must establish that some ‘external force’ impeded the defense’s efforts to comply with the procedural rule.” Id. at 756 (citation omitted). To meet the “miscarriage of justice” standard, a petitioner must “supplement his constitutional claim with a colorable showing of factual innocence .... ” Id. at 757 (citations omitted). The miscarriage of justice standard focuses on factual rather than legal innocence. Callins v. Johnson, 89 F.3d 210, 213 (5th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). To make an adequate factual showing on this issue, a petitioner must satisfy a federal court of the existence of “a fair probability that, in light of the evidence ... the trier of the facts would have entertained a reasonable doubt of his guilt.” Bagwell, 372 F.3d at 757 (citations omitted). If neither of the two Bagwell conditions is met, then a claim in procedural default can be finally dismissed. Under these legal standards, this Court considers the claims stated in Holland’s Amended Petition. IV. Analysis of Holland’s Claims As set forth above, Holland has enumerated twelve specific claims in his Amended Petition. In addition, Holland seeks an evidentiary hearing to further develop the claims. See Amended Petition, pp. 44-48, ¶¶ 153-160. Before analyzing the claims in the Amended Petition, the Court must first consider whether Holland is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. This issue is controlled by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), which states: (2) If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that— (A) the claim relies on— (i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. Based on the facts of this case, the arguments presented by Holland and the counter-arguments presented by Respondents, the Court finds that the conditions set forth in § 2254(e)(2)(A) & (B) are not met. Therefore, Holland’s prayer for an evidentiary hearing is denied. The Court now proceeds with analyzing the claims and arguments presented in Holland’s Amended Petition. A. claim 1: Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution where the Petitioner was denied his right to be tried by a fair and impartial jury In claim one, Holland argues that his right to a fair trial was violated because he was not tried by a fair and impartial jury. This claim focuses on the guilt / innocence phase of the trial which occurred in December of 1997. It does not pertain to the sentencing phases of trial which initially occurred in December 1997, and again in March and April of 1993, after the reversal and remand of the first death sentence by the Mississippi Supreme Court. Holland cites the following seven groups of facts in support of a finding that the jury during the guilt / innocence phase of his trial was not fair or impartial: 1) The jury was exposed to prejudicial publicity, or an inflamed community atmosphere. Amended Petition, p. 57, , ¶ 185; . 2) The jury was exposed to “[ajdverse pre''trial'publicity.” Id. at p. 57, ¶ 187; 3) The jury’s verdict was' “affected by prejudicial extraneous facts arid information not introduced into evidence” at trial. Id. at p. 58, ¶ 189; 4) Holland was not allowed a second change of venue. Id. at p..59, ¶¶ 193-94;' . , 5) The local coroners stated in front of venire members that Holland should be “strung up.” Id. at p. 59, ¶ 195; 6) The trial judge failed to excuse all veni-re members who read or talked about news articles, covering the issue. Id. at pp. 59-60, ¶¶ 195-96; and 7) Jurors joked that they should convict Holland so that they could go home. Id. at p. 60, ¶ 197-98. Rather than address the substance of Holland’s arguments, Respondents contend that this claim is procedurálly barred as an unexhausted claim. The Court agrees. As set forth above, Holland must have exhausted all remedies pertaining to a claim in Mississippi state court before this Court can render a decision on the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Holland argues that the subject claim was presented to the Mississippi Supreme Court under claim one of his initial direct appeal. The title of that claim is “THE TRIAL COURT’S REFUSAL TO GRANT A MISTRIAL AFTER IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE JURORS HAD DELIBERATED ON PUNISHMENT PRIOR TO THE SENTENCING PHASE VIOLATES ... THE MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION AND ... THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.” Brief of Appellant — Initial Direct Appeal, p. 8 (emphasis added; capital letters in original). The emphasized language in this title provides an indication that the argument presented to the Mississippi Supreme Court pertained to the sentencing phase of Holland’s trial, and not the guilt / innocence phase of the proceeding. In fact, that is the very argument now made by Respondents. That is, contend Respondents, Holland’s claim in state court pertained solely to the sentencing phase of the December 1997 trial. Therefore, Respondents argue that the instant claim which pertains to the guilt / innocence phase of that trial is unexhausted. To analyze this issue, the Court must consider whether Holland sufficiently presented the issue of a tainted jury at the guilt / innocence trial to the Mississippi Supreme Court in both a legal context (see Bagwell, 372 F.3d at 755), and in a factual context (see Morris, 379 F.3d at 204-05). The Court has reviewed the contents of claim one of Holland’s initial direct appeal, which is contained on pages four through eight of the Brief of Appellant — Initial Direct Appeal. Although a very expansive reading of that state court claim could indicate that Holland was asserting a legal argument for a mistrial in toto, this Court does not adopt such a reading. The initial paragraph of the claim refers to the jury returning a sentence of death before hearing evidence pertaining to the sentencing phase of the trial. Brief of Appellant — • Initial Direct Appeal, pp. 4-5. The crux of the remaining arguments focus on the unconstitutional nature of jurors deliberating before a case has been submitted to them, i.e., deliberating before they have heard evidence on an issue. Id. at pp. 5-8. The only issue on which the subject jury deliberated prematurely was the sentencing issue, not the guilt / innocence issue. This Court therefore finds that claim one of Holland’s initial direct appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court was limited in scope to a legal argument pertaining to the sentencing phase of his initial trial. Further, Holland failed to articulate the factual substance of the subject federal habeas claim to the Mississippi Supreme Court. None of the seven groups of facts stated above is set forth in claim one of the Brief of Appellant — Initial Direct Appeal. Accordingly, in light of new facts presented in claim one of Holland’s Amended Petition, the Court finds that the subject claim is “substantially different” from the corresponding state court claim. See Kun-kle, 352 F.3d at 988. Based on these holdings, this Court finds that Holland failed to present the substance of claim one of his federal habe-as petition to the Mississippi Supreme Court. This failure pertains to both the legal arguments and facts presented to that court. Accordingly, this Court further finds that claim one of the subject Amended Petition is unexhausted under the provisions of § 2254(b)(1)(A) and (c). Next considered is the status of claim one in light of this holding. Respondents contend that Holland is in procedural default because he failed to exhaust state court remedies regarding claim one, and because Holland is now barred by Mississippi state law from exhausting the claim. Again, the Court agrees with Respondents. The second prong of Respondents argument, that Holland is now barred from exhausting claim one, is based on the Mississippi statute of limitations. The only avenue by which Holland could now exhaust his state court remedies is through an application for post-conviction collateral relief with the appropriate Mississippi court. Under § 99-39-5(2) of the Mississippi Code, “filings for post-conviction relief in capital cases ... shall be made within one (1) year after conviction.” In the context of this statute, the word “conviction” is defined as the date that the mandamus pertaining to a direct appeal is issued. Puckett v. State of Mississippi 834 So.2d 676, 677-78 (Miss.2002). The mandamus pertaining to Holland’s second and final direct appeal was issued on February 24, 1998, well over one year ago. Further, § 99-39-27(9) of the Mississippi Code bars successive applications for post-conviction collateral relief, once a final judgment is entered on the initial application. See also Cook v. State of Mississippi 910 So.2d 745, 747 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (holding that under § 99-39-27(9), successive motions for post-conviction relief are procedurally barred). Based on these two Mississippi code sections, the Court finds that Holland is in procedural default with regard to claim one of his Amended Petition. Holland’s only avenues for overcoming this procedural default are: (1) demonstrating cause for the default and resulting prejudice; or (2) demonstrating that a failure to consider claim one will result in a miscarriage of justice. See Bagwell, 372 F.3d at 755. Holland makes no effort to prove these factors in either his Amended Petition or his Reply in Support of Amended Petition. Further, the Court’s independent analysis of the facts and law pertaining to claim one indicates that neither of these factors is met. The Court therefore finds that claim one must be dismissed as an unexhausted and procedurally barred claim. B. claim 2: Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution where various prejudicial evidence having no probative value was improperly admitted at trial In claim two, Holland argues that the admission of three forms of evidence at his initial trial constituted constitutional violations. The evidentiary rulings in issue are: (1) the admission of the video portion of an audio / video recording of the exhumation of King’s body; (2) the admission of a pillow case found near King’s grave site; and (3) the admission of a wash cloth found near King’s grave site. Holland claims that the admission of all three of these forms of evidence was argued before the Mississippi Supreme Court on his initial direct appeal in Holland I. Holland also contends that Mississippi Supreme Court correctly found that the trial court erred by allowing the evidence to be admitted, but incorrectly found that the error was harmless. This Court begins with considering Holland’s argument pertaining to admission of the pillow case. Respondents correctly contend that this argument must be rejected as an unexhausted and procedurally barred claim. The Court has reviewed both the Brief of Appellant — Initial Direct Appeal and the rulings of the Mississippi Supreme Court in Holland I. The issue of erroneous admission of a pillow case was not raised in Appellant’s Brief, and was not addressed by the court in Holland I. Therefore, this Court finds that Holland failed to exhaust his state court remedies with regard to the alleged erroneous admission of a pillow case at trial. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). The Court further finds that: (1) Holland is in procedural default on this claim; (2) he has shown no excusable cause of the default; and (3) he has not demonstrated that failure to consider this claim would result in a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, Holland is not entitled to habeas relief based the admission into evidence of the subject pillow case. See Bagwell, 372 F.3d at 755. The Court now focuses on Holland’s arguments pertaining to the wrongful admission of the video tape and the wash cloth. Holland’s argument on this issue appears to be based on prosecutorial misconduct. That is, Holland contends that the prosecutor’s successful efforts in admitting this evidence at trial “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Amended Petition, p. 63, ¶ 210. Respondents begin by again asserting that this claim must be dismissed as an unexhausted claim. Although the Mississippi Supreme Court did not address the admission of this evidence under the purview of prosecutorial misconduct, a reading of page fifty-one of the Brief of Appellant — Initial Direct Appeal, indicates that Holland did in fact make an argument on this issue, albeit very brief. This Court therefore finds that Holland did exhaust his state court remedies on the issues of prosecutorial misconduct regarding successful efforts to admit the video tape and the wash cloth. See Bagwell, 372 F.3d at 755 (holding that “[t]o exhaust, a petitioner must have fairly presented the substance of his claim to the state courts.”). Holland argues that the video tape should not have been admitted into evidence because the graphic nature of its contents prejudiced the jury against him. Similarly, he argues that the foul odor emanating from the wash cloth unduly prejudiced the jury. Holland asserts that these two forms of evidence were unnecessarily cumulative because neither was offered to prove anything that could not be proven by less prejudicial forms of evidence offered at trial by the prosecution. In Holland I, the Mississippi Supreme Court addressed the video tape and wash cloth issue in the context of the probative value of the evidence versus its prejudicial effect. Holland I, at 863-65. The Mississippi Supreme Court held that the trial court erred by admitting the evidence, but that the error was harmless. Id. at 865. For purposes of analyzing the subject Amended Petition, this Court operates under the assumption that admission of the evidence .in question was in fact erroneous. In Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986), the United States Supreme Court held that in analyzing a prosecutorial misconduct habe-as claim,- “[t]he relevant question is whether the prosecutors’ comments ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ ” (Citing Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974)). This Court finds that the prosecution’s successful attempts to introduce the video tape and the wash cloth at trial did not so infect Holland’s trial with unfairness as to make his conviction a denial of due process. Further, erroneous admission of the video tape and the wash cloth was the fault of the trial judge for allowing the evidence; it was not the fault of the prosecution for offering the evidence. Holland’s prosecutorial misconduct argument is without merit. To the extent that Holland is contending he is entitled to habeas relief-because the Mississippi Supreme Court found that admission of the video tape and the wash cloth at trial was harmless error, that argument also must fail. In Jackson v. Johnson, 194 F.3d 641 (5th Cir.1999), the Fifth Circuit set forth a standard to measure whether habeas relief can be granted based on the erroneous admission of evidence at trial. The Jackson court held: In habeas actions, [a federal court does] not sit to review the admissibility of evidence under state law unless erroneous evidentiary rulings were so- extreme as to result in a denial of a constitutionally fair proceeding. Thus, the erroneous admission of prejudicial testimony does not justify habeas relief unless the evidence played a “crucial, critical, and highly significant” role in the jury’s de- ' termination. Id. at 656 (citation omitted). The Mississippi Supreme Court based its harmless error finding on the fact that other horrific evidence was entered without objection, and because the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicated Holland’s guilt. Holland I, at 864 (regarding the video tape), & p. 865 (regarding the wash cloth). After reviewing relevant portions of the record, this Court agrees with the Mississippi Supreme Court. Accordingly, Holland’s prayer for habeas relief pertaining to this issue must be denied because the Court finds that admission of the video tape and the wash cloth did not deny. Holland a constitutionally fair proceeding. Finally, Holland makes a brief and unsupported argument that “[t]he cumulative effect of the federal constitutional error ... warrants the grant of the Writ.” Amended Petition, p. 65, ¶ 219. The Court notes that under claim twelve of the Amended Petition, Holland asserts a more detailed argument pertaining to the cumulative effect of alleged errors. His cumulative effect argument is addressed below under claim twelve. For all of the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Holland is not entitled to habeas corpus relief under claim two of his Amended Petition. C. claim 3: Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to the effective assistance of counsel under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution at the trial proceeding In his third claim, Holland asserts that he is entitle to habeas relief based on ineffectiveness of legal counsel. Specifically, Holland’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument is built upon the alleged inadequate performance of Earl Stegall, the attorney who represented him at the initial trial and on the initial direct appeal. The standard by which to measure an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a habeas proceeding was set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The Strickland Court held: A convicted defendant’s claim that counsel’s assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or death sentence has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Applying the Strickland tests, a federal court must consider whether the attorney’s representation was reasonable under all of the circumstances presented at the trial proceeding, as well as other relevant proceedings. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.” Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The burden is on the defendant to “show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (emphasis added; footnote added). Holland makes many general and unsupported arguments in his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Amended Petition, p. 66, ¶ 222 (stating that “[i]t appears that little, if any, advance preparation was made to develop a strategy and obtain witnesses to contradict the testimony of the State’s witnesses .... ”); p. 74, ¶ 246 (stating that “the totality of the attorney’s errors made the proceeding fundamentally unfair ____”); p. 74, ¶249 (stating that “trial counsel was doing little to nothing at trial.”). The Court points this out not to berate counsel for Holland, but to aid in setting the parameters for this ineffective assistance of counsel analysis. Although Holland asserted several grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel in his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief with the Mississippi Supreme Court (Holland III, at 4-6), only the grounds specifically asserted in the subject Amended Petition may now be considered by this Court. Fuentes v. Dretke, 89 Fed.Appx. 868, 875 (5th Cir.2004) (holding that a claim for relief is waived if it is not asserted in the federal petition for habeas corpus relief). The general allegations cited above are not sufficient to encompass all of the ineffective assistance of counsel arguments asserted by Holland at the state court level. The only arguments which are adequately asserted and developed in the subject Amended Petition to warrant consideration herewith are: (1) the failure to prepare an adequate defense to the testimony of Dr. Paul McGarry, the pathology expert for the State; (2) the failure to move for an expert witness to review McGarry’s expert report, to review the evidence relied upon by McGarry, and to rebut McGarry’s testimony at trial; (3) the failure to object to admission of certain forms of evidence at trial; and (4) the failure to assert objections at trial in a timely manner. First considered is the allegation that. Stegall did not adequately prepare for the testimony of McGarry. Holland’s argument is summarized as follows: 223. The most glaring of trial counsel’s failures was his total lapse in not preparing any defense to the testimony of Dr. McGarry, the State pathologist. ' 224. The ineffectiveness of trial counsel and the prejudicial effect upon Petitioner was fully noted by the Mississippi’ Supreme Court as evidenced by their statement in commenting on trial counsel’s failure to take advantage of the trial court’s willingness to provide counsel with an “unlimited” opportunity during trial to interview McGarry. 225. The Supreme Court noted “Holland chose not to exercise this opportunity for reasons not made known, and, thus he rendered himself less informed or uninformed about what he was and is not claiming. This Court therefore holds him“ to that choice.” Holland v. State, 587 So.2d 848, 868 (Miss.1991): Amended Petition, p. 66, ¶¶ 223-25. The,Court notes that quoted paragraph 225 of Holland’s Amended Petition relates to an analysis in Holland I of whether a new trial was warranted because of alleged discovery violations pertaining to McGar-ry’s testimony. That analysis did not pertain to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The only phase of the state court litigation at which.Holland specifically asserted an ineffective assistance of counsel argument was in his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, which was addressed by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Holland III. To effectively analyze the ineffective assistance of counsel argument, this Court must consider in conjunction with one another, the holdings in Holland /, the holdings in Holland III, and the record from the state court proceedings. As stated above, in analyzing an alleged discovery violation claim pertaining to McGarry’s testimony, the Holland I court commented on the performance of Holland’s trial counsel. The substance of the comments follows. At trial, the State called McGarry to testify about the autopsy he performed on Krystal. At one point, after testifying about Krystal’s injuries and bruises, the State asked McGarry: Doctor, do you have an opinion about the amount of time it would take for such bruising to form? Vol. XII, at 2058; see also id. at 2186-87 (further related questioning). Holland objected to this question on the ground that: the; [“substance” of the] doctor’s opinions as to the time when [Krystal’s] bruises began to form, which would lead to the doctor’s opinions as to the time when the injuries must have been inflicted, were never disclosed [during] discovery. * * íií * 5¡S ifí After extensively debating this issue outside the jury’s presence, the judge halted the trial and granted Holland an “unlimited opportunity” to interview McGarry. The interview transpired overnight. Vol. XII, at 2059-88. The next morning, after the interview, the debate continued. The judge ultimately overruled Holland’s motion-after which the following exchange transpired: JUDGE VLAHOS: You will agree for the motion for mistrial or exclude the evidence, that on yesterday evening you were given ample opportunity to interview with Dr. McGarry.... [Y]ou visited with him for about ten or fifteen minutes; is that correct? HOLLAND: That is correct. We did have an opportunity to talk with him. JUDGE: And an unlimited opportunity; is that correct? HOLLAND: Yes. Id. at 2095-98 (emphasis added). Holland I, at 866. The Holland I court commented further that “Holland merely questioned McGarry for ‘about ten or fifteen minutes’ and for the purpose of merely ascertaining how long the State had known about his opinions.” Id. at 867 (citing Vol. XII at 2071-82 & 2097-98) (emphasis added). A reading of the holdings in Holland I would indicate that Stegall interviewed McGarry for only ten to fifteen minutes, and that the subject matter covered by the interview was very limited. A review of the actual record of the trial transcript indicates otherwise. This Court finds that the Holland I court was incomplete and inaccurate in its quote from pages 2095 through 2098 of the trial court record. A complete and -accurate reading of the record follows, beginning with a dialogue on December 8, 1997, between the trial court and Stegall. BY THE COURT: Your other announcement was that you have not finished talking to [McGarry], I believe you only had about ten or fifteen minutes. BY MR. STEGALL: Yes, I haven’t finished talking to him about the times and so forth. BY THE COURT: About the times? BY MR. STEGALL: Yes, sir. That’s what I was talking to him about. BY THE COURT: But, you had visited with him about ten or fifteen minutes? BY MR. STEGALL: Yes, sir, that is correct. R., Holland I at 2076-77. BY THE COURT:.... Mr. Stegall, would you be available to visit with Dr. McGarry at 8:00 o’clock tonight. Would you want to eat first? BY MR. STEGALL: I would like to do it right now if he doesn’t mind. R., Holland I at 2080. BY THE COURT: We will take a recess and y’all be back at 9:00 o’clock in the morning. You will have ample opportunity to speak with Dr. McGar-ry. R., Holland I at 2086. The court then recessed for the day, and the trial resumed on the morning of December 9,1987. BY THE COURT: You will agree for the motion for mistrial or exclude the evidence, that on yesterday evening you were given ample opportunity to interview with Dr. McGarry and you chose to visit with him last evening instead of this morning. No. I suggested that you eat and then visit with him about 8:00 o’clock and you said that you wanted to visit with him at that moment, which I think was around 6:00 o’clock. After you had previously visited with him for about ten or fifteen minutes; is that correct? BY MR. STEGALL: That is correct. We did have the opportunity to talk with him. BY THE COURT: And -an unlimited ■ opportunity; is that correct? BY MR. STEGALL: Yes. R., Holland I at 297-98 (emphasis added; footnote added). Although Holland’s argument' is somewhat sketchy on this issue, he appears to argue that Stegall failed to adequately interview McGarry after the- issue arose regarding timing of the victim’s wounds, even though the trial court offered him a liberal opportunity to conduct an interview. Reading the excerpt of the trial transcript quoted in Holland I tends to support Holland’s argument. However, reading the relevant portion of the-transcript in total indicates otherwise. The “ten to fifteen minute” interview referenced by the Holland I court was Stegall’s initial interview of McGarry, it was not his only interview with McGarry. See supra, footnote 10. Based on the record, Stegall took the opportunity to further interview McGarry on the evening of December 8, before the trial resumed on December 9. Although the record is not clear as to the length of the interview, it is clear that Stegall took advantage to the offer of the trial court to interview McGarry on a purportedly “unlimited” basis on the evening of December 8. Holland also raised the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel with the Mississippi Supreme .Court in his Petition for PosWConviction Relief, which was addressed in Holland III. Regarding the subject issue, the Holland III court stated “the record reflects that trial counsel was afforded ample opportunity to interview Dr. McGarry prior to the testimony and even stated to the court, ‘I’m prepared for cross-examination of Dr. McGarry.’ ” Holland III, at 5. Based on this quote from Holland III, this Court infers that the Mississippi Supreme Court realized its error in the Holland I analysis pertaining to whether Stegall adequately interviewed McGarry. In accordance with the holdings presented in Holland III and in light of the totality of the circumstances presented by the record, this Court finds that Stegall adequately prepared for McGarry’s testimony.’ Therefore, this ineffective assistance of counsel argument fails under the Strickland standard. Holland’s second ineffective assistance of counsel argument is that Stegall failed to move -for an expert witness to review McGarry’s expert report, to review the evidence relied upon by McGarry, and to rebut McGarry’s testimony at trial. Rejecting this same argument, the Holland III court stated “Holland asserts that counsel should have sought funding for his own pathology expert, but he fails to include the affidavit of any professional who would dispute findings, of the State’s expert. The benefit of such a defense expert is therefore speculative at best.” Holland III, at 5. This Court agrees with the Holland III court. Under the second Strickland test, Holland must come forth with evidence and/or arguments indicating that the alleged deficient performance prejudiced his defense, i.e., that but for Stegall’s error, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the trial would have been different. Holland has presented no arguments and has cited no evidence which would satisfy this test. In fact, the record indicates that additional expert testimony in the field of pathology supported McGarry’s conclusions. The trial court arranged for an independent pathologist, Dr. David Steckler, to review McGarry’s opinions. R., Holland I at 2288. Steckler provided no opinions that conflicted with McGarry’s opinions. R., Holland I at 2288-92. Under these facts, this Court rejects Holland’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument based on the failure to retain a pathology expert. Holland’s third brief and relatively unsupported ineffective assistance of counsel argument is that Stegall erred by failing to object to admission . of certain forms of evidence at trial. Because Holland failed to elaborate on the basis of this claim, the Court must refer to the arguments made in the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. In the Petition, Holland states: A photograph of King, white shorts, pillow case and a concrete bag respectively were in such a state as to shock the jury and were more prejudicial than probative .... This Court found the admission of the cloth error. Relying on the Court’s earlier analysis, the white shorts, concrete bag, cloth and pillow case should have all been excluded. Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, p. 28. Holland failed to explain why the shorts, the concrete bag and the pillow case should have been excluded for the same reasons justifying exclusion of-the cloth. Further, Holland provided no specific reasons to this Court as to why the photograph should have been excluded, or why admission of any of the evidence prejudiced his defense. The Court must therefore reject this ineffective ' assistance of counsel claim. The fourth and final ineffective assistance of .counsel argument is that Stegall erred by failing to assert objections at trial in a timely manner. The Court is left to assume that Holland is referring to the timing of the objection, to McGarry’s testimony. For the same reason stated by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Holland III, this Court rejects Holland’s argument on this issue. See Holland III, at 5 (holding that Stegall was not dilatory in objection to McGarry’s testimony). Based on the analyses presented above, this Court finds that all of Holland’s ineffective assistance of counsel arguments are without merit. Habeas relief cannot be granted on this claim. D. claim 4: Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution whe