Full opinion text
ROGERS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which SUTTON, J., joined. MERRITT, J. (pp. 977-81), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. ROGERS, Circuit Judge. An Ohio jury convicted the petitioner, William J. Williams, Jr., of four counts of aggravated murder, and, on the jury’s recommendation, the trial court sentenced Williams to death. After unsuccessfully challenging his convictions and sentence on direct appeal and in state post-conviction proceedings, Williams filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which set forth twenty-four claims for relief, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The district court denied Williams’s petition, finding that Williams had procedurally defaulted the majority of his claims and rejecting the balance of his claims on the merits. However, it issued Williams a certificate of appealability for all claims, and Williams’s appeal is now before the court. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. BACKGROUND I. The Murders. The Ohio Supreme Court made the following factual findings on direct review: Williams controlled the drug trafficking at the Kimmelbrooks housing project in east Youngstown, Ohio. After an extended absence from the area, Williams returned to find that Alfonda R. Madison, Sr., William L. Dent, Eric Howard, and others had taken over the drug trade at the Kimmelbrooks project. Williams wanted to regain control of the drug business, so he decided to rob and kill Madison and others. Williams had three juvenile accomplices: his sixteen-year-old girlfriend Jessica M. Cherry; her sixteen- or seventeen-year-old brother, Dominic M. Cherry; and Dominic Cherry’s seventeen-year-old “cousin” (i.e., best friend), Broderick Boone. On August 27, 1991, Williams bought walkie-talkies at a Radio Shack store. The devices had a combined microphone-earphone earpiece that left the user’s hands free. Williams also bought batteries and duct tape. Williams, Dominic, and Broderick later tested the walkie-talkies. Before the murders, Williams outlined his plan to his three accomplices. During this meeting, Williams drew interior and exterior diagrams of Madison’s house. Williams later ordered Dominic to burn these, but Dominie burned only one diagram. In addition, Williams supplied each accomplice with a gun. Williams purchased Jessica’s gun from a neighbor. On September 1, 1991, Jessica met with Madison and discussed a drug deal. Later that night, Williams and his three accomplices arrived at Madison’s home by car. Williams armed the three juvenile accomplices with guns and a walkie-talkie and sent them inside, while he waited outside with a walkie-talkie. Once inside, the three accomplices drew their guns on Madison. Then, after receiving word via walkie-talkie that the situation was secure, Williams, armed with a semiautomatic, entered the house carrying a duffel bag containing handcuffs, duct tape, and gloves. Inside, Williams handcuffed and bound Madison and put tape over his mouth. Thirty to forty-five minutes later, Theodore Wynn, Jr., a recently discharged Air Force sergeant, came to the door, looking for Madison and Howard, who were roommates. Jessica answered the door and told Wynn that Madison was not home and Howard was asleep. As Wynn walked back towards his car, Williams told Jessica to call Wynn back into the house because Wynn could identify them. Inside the house, Williams held Wynn at gunpoint and handcuffed him. Upon William’s orders, Jessica walked to a pay phone and called and asked for Dent for the purpose of luring him to the house. When Dent arrived with Howard, Williams and his accomplices ambushed them and forced them to lie down in the bathroom. Williams strangled Madison and Wynn, and then instructed Jessica to turn up the stereo. Going from room to room, Williams shot each of the four victims in the head with Madison’s gun. The group left Madison’s house, but Williams, according to Jessica, went back in “to make sure they were all dead.” Later, back at Williams’s apartment, he embraced his juvenile accomplices and rewarded them with drugs. Williams warned them not to tell anyone what they had done or he would kill them. The next day, September 2, 1991, Williams and Jessica were driving to pick up Williams’s son in Youngstown when another car rammed theirs and the people in the other car shot at them. Jessica and Williams fled the scene. When Jessica and Williams returned to the vicinity of the accident, officers transported them to the Youngstown Police Department and later released them after questioning them about the traffic accident. Later that night, Williams, Jessica, Dominic, and Broder-ick fled to Pennsylvania. Williams and the three juveniles returned to the Youngstown area and parted company. On September 24, 1991, Dominic turned himself in, and gave a statement about the murders. Later, officers arrested Jessica and Broderick, and the latter also gave statements. Following their arrests, Jessica, Dominic, and Broderick were held at the Mahoning County Juvenile Justice Center (“JJC”). Williams was arrested in connection with the murders. Shortly after being arrested, he escaped from jail on October 15, 1991. While Williams remained a fugitive from justice, a Mahoning County Grand Jury indicted him on four counts of aggravated murder, four counts of kidnapping, and one count of aggravated burglary. On January 12, 1992, the armed Williams and two other accomplices, Paul R. Keiper, Jr., and a juvenile named Eric Fields, appeared at the JJC. The three deceived a receptionist and were permitted to enter. Once inside, Williams held the receptionist and a deputy sheriff hostage, demanding to see Jessica, Dominic, and Broderick. After lengthy negotiations, Williams surrendered to authorities. At trial, Keiper testified that Williams planned to lull the three juveniles because he knew they had made statements to the police regarding the murders. * * * Jessica, Dominic, and Broderick all entered into plea agreements with the Ma-honing County Prosecutor’s Office. All three pled guilty to delinquency by reason of complicity to aggravated murder, complicity to aggravated burglary, and complicity to kidnapping. All three testified against Williams. State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1, 679 N.E.2d 646, 650-51 (1997). II. Procedural History. While Williams was a fugitive, a Mahon-ing County Grand Jury returned a nine count indictment against Williams. After his capture, a Mahoning County Grand Jury returned a superseding indictment charging Williams with twelve counts of aggravated murder, four counts of kidnapping, and one count of aggravated burglary. Each of the aggravated murder counts included a pair of felony-murder specifications and a multiple-murder specification, which rendered Williams eligible for the death penalty. See Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2929.04(A) (Anderson 2003). Williams entered a plea of not guilty to all charges and specifications. On Williams’s motion, the trial court transferred venue from Mahoning County to Summit County. At the guilt phase of his trial, the jury found Williams guilty of all charges and specifications. On Williams’s motion, the trial court merged the twelve aggravated murder counts into four counts and the three specifications per count into a single multiple-murder specification per count. At the penalty phase of his trial, the jury recommended a sentence of death for each count of aggravated murder, and the trial court adopted this recommendation. Additionally, the trial court sentenced Williams for the kidnapping and aggravated burglary convictions. Williams appealed, raising nine assignments of error. On November 1, 1995, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court. In addition to overruling Williams’s assignments of error, the court concluded that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors and that Williams’s sentence was not disproportionate to the death sentences imposed in similar cases. On June 11, 1997, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Ohio Court of Appeals. In addition to rejecting Williams’s propositions of law, the court concluded that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors and that Williams’s sentence was neither excessive nor disproportionate when compared to the sentences imposed in similar cases. On January 12, 1998, the United States Supreme Court denied Williams’s petition for writ of certiorari. Williams fared no better in state post-conviction proceedings. On September 20, 1996, Williams filed his Petition to Vacate or Set Aside Sentence, which set forth a single cause of action challenging the constitutionality of Ohio’s capital punishment scheme, in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas. The matter sat dormant until October 20, 1998, when the state filed a motion for leave to respond to Williams’s petition. The court granted the motion, finding that the state had not received proper notice of the petition. On October 29, 1998, the state moved for summary judgment, arguing that Williams’s sole claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In his response, which was filed on November 19, 1998, Williams ignored the constitutional issue raised in his petition and instead requested leave to amend his petition. He claimed that he was attempting to interview his accomplices, who had testified against him at trial, and that he expected Jessica Cherry to recant her original testimony. On December 15, 1998, the court denied Williams’s petition. It held that the doctrine of res judicata barred Williams’s constitutional challenge to Ohio’s capital punishment scheme. Further, it denied Williams a hearing on his actual innocence claim on the ground that he had not presented any affidavits or other evidence supporting his contention that his accomplices intended to recant their testimony. On December 24, 1998, Williams filed a motion requesting permission to interview Broderick Boone, one of his accomplices, who was then incarcerated. On the same day, Williams filed a motion requesting that the court reconsider and vacate its order denying his petition, arguing that he needed time to interview his accomplices. On January 5, 1999, the court denied both motions. Williams appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals, contending that the Court of Common Pleas had abused its discretion by denying his request for a court order permitting an interview of Broderick Boone and by refusing to permit him to amend his petition. On November 17, 1999, the court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas. On February 16, 2000, the Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction over Williams’s appeal, finding that it did not involve any substantial constitutional questions. On October 2, 2000, the United States Supreme Court denied Williams’s petition for writ of certiorari. On August 18, 2000, Williams filed a Notice of Intent to File Habeas Corpus Petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Counsel was appointed, and, on January 31, 2001, Williams filed his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which raised 24 claims for relief. On February 20, 2001, Williams filed a motion to conduct discovery pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. On June 22, 2001, the district court denied Williams’s motion, holding that Williams had not demonstrated “good cause” entitling him to discovery. On April 12, 2002, the district court denied Williams’s petition. It held that Williams had procedurally defaulted the majority of his claims and that the balance of his claims lacked merit. The district court also denied Williams’s request for an evidentiary hearing, finding that no material factual dispute made such a hearing necessary. On the same day, the district court denied Williams a certificate of appealability. However, on April 15, 2002, the district court amended its April 12 order and issued Williams a certificate of appealability. Williams filed a timely notice of appeal. ANALYSIS I. Standards of Review A. Standard of Review and AEDPA In a habeas proceeding, this court reviews a district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Wickline v. Mitchell, 319 F.3d 813, 817 (6th Cir.2003). However, when a district court bases its decision on a transcript from the petitioner’s state trial, and thus makes no credibility determinations or other apparent findings of fact, the district court’s factual findings are reviewed de novo. Miller v. Francis, 269 F.3d 609, 613 (6th Cir.2001). The standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Assistance Act (“AEDPA”) govern our review of the state court decisions because Williams filed his petition on January 31, 2001, well after AEDPA’s effective date of April 24, 1996. See Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 210, 123 S.Ct. 1398, 155 L.Ed.2d 363 (2003); Macias v. Makowski, 291 F.3d 447, 450 (6th Cir.2002). Pursuant to AEDPA, a writ of habeas corpus will not issue unless the state court’s 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (2001). Under the “contrary to” clause, a court may grant a writ of habeas corpus “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). Under the “unreasonable application” clause, a court may grant a writ of habeas corpus “if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme Court’s] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.” Id. at 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495. “[Cjlearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” refers to “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Id. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495. The state court decision need not cite Supreme Court cases, or even evince an awareness of Supreme Court cases, “so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them.” Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S.Ct. 362, 154 L.Ed.2d 263, 123 S.Ct. 362 (2002) (per curiam). Moreover, the findings of fact made by a state court are presumed correct, and the petitioner has the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). The presumption of correctness also applies to factual findings made by a state appellate court based on the state trial record. Brumley v. Wingard, 269 F.3d 629, 637 (6th Cir.2001) (citing Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 546-47, 101 S.Ct. 764, 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981)). Finally, under long-standing law, claims which have been proeedurally defaulted generally are not subject to review. In particular, In all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). B. Applicability of AEDPA Where Conviction Predated AEDPA In this case, Williams’s petition was filed after the effective date of AEDPA, but he was convicted before that date. Williams contends that the application of AEDPA is therefore “impermissibly retroactive” pursuant to Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). Without elaboration, he recites that the application of AEDPA to his petition “attaches new legal consequences to pre-enactment conduct” by “affecting [his] substantive rights,” by “changing the legal consequences of pre-enactment conduct,” by “giving a quality or effect to acts which they lacked or failed to contemplate prior [to] their performance,” and by “changing the relief that is available by restricting [his] right to such relief.” This argument is unavailing. Landgraf establishes a two-part inquiry to assess whether to apply “a federal statute enacted after the events in suit.” Id. at 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483; see also Singleton v. Smith, 241 F.3d 534, 541 (6th Cir.2001). First, the court must “determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute’s proper reach. If Congress has done so, there is no need to resort to judicial default rules.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483. Second, if “the statute contains no such express command, the court must determine whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, ie., whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed,” in which case the traditional presumption against retroactive legislation applies. Id. In determining whether a statute would have a retroactive effect, “familiar considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations offer sound guidance.” Id. at 270, 114 S.Ct. 1483. “A statute does not operate ‘retrospectively’ merely because it is applied in a case arising from conduct antedating the statute’s enactment.” Id. at 269, 114 S.Ct. 1483. This court, in line with other circuits, has held that the application of AEDPA to an application filed after AED-PA’s effective date, but which involves a crime and a conviction predating AEDPA, does not have a “retroactive effect.” Lott v. Coyle, 261 F.3d 594, 604 n. 3 (6th Cir.2001) (deeming petitioner’s argument that the application of AEDPA to a petition challenging a pre-AEDPA conviction “would be unconstitutionally retroactive under Landgmf ... wholly without merit”); Caldwell v. Bell, 9 Fed.Appx. 472, 2001 WL 549419, at *2 (6th Cir. May 17, 2001) (“Other than making the general assertion that his ‘legal expectations and entitlements were abruptly altered on April 24, 1996’ when the AEDPA was enacted, Appellant advances no reason why this case constitutes an exception to the general rule which requires the amendments to apply to petitions filed after April 24, 1996.”); Coe v. Bell, 209 F.3d 815, 823 (6th Cir.2000); Trice v. Ward, 196 F.3d 1151, 1158-59 (10th Cir.1999); Mueller v. Angelone, 181 F.3d 557, 571 (4th Cir.1999). Williams has not demonstrated that his case merits a different result, given his failure to identify “any new legal consequences that, had he known of them in advance, might have in any way affected his conduct before filing his habeas petition,” Mueller, 181 F.3d at 572, and his failure to show that he had acquired any vested rights in pre-AEDPA standards of review. Compare In re Hanserd, 123 F.3d 922, 931 (6th Cir.1997) (holding that the application of revised § 2255, which would have barred the petitioner, who had filed his first § 2255 motion prior to AEDPA’s enactment, from filing a second § 2255 motion, would have had retroactive effect because the petitioner “might well have waited to file that initial motion” had he foreseen AEDPA’s revision of § 2255). II. The Trial Court’s Refusal to Investigate Alleged Juror Bias Each of Williams’s challenges to the trial court’s conduct of voir dire is, in the end, without merit. A. Background Williams argues that the trial court committed constitutional error by refusing to reexamine a venireman (Juror Eddleman) after the testimony of another venireman indicated that Eddleman may have concealed prior knowledge of the case on voir dire, by failing to dismiss Eddleman for cause because of alleged bias, and by failing to dismiss for cause another venireman (Juror Rohwedder) who testified to overhearing conversations about “fear” of Williams. We note at the outset that Williams has not cited — either in his brief or at oral argument — any Supreme Court precedent in support of his claims. We therefore have been left to find for ourselves the clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, underlying his argument. The Sixth Anendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees a criminal defendant a trial by an impartial jury. Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 726-27, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992). “In essence, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, ‘indifferent’ jurors.” Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). The presence of even a single biased juror deprives a defendant of his right to an impartial jury. See Morgan, 504 U.S. at 729, 112 S.Ct. 2222. “Qualified jurors need not, however, be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved.” Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799-800, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. Irvin, 366 U.S. at 723, 81 S.Ct. 1639. When faced with an allegation of bias, then, the question becomes “did a juror swear that he could set aside any opinion he might hold and decide the case on the evidence, and should the juror’s protestation of impartiality have been believed.” Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1036, 104 S.Ct. 2885, 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984). A trial court’s finding of impartiality is a factual determination entitled to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)’s presumption of correctness, Dennis v. Mitchell, 354 F.3d 511, 520 (6th Cir.2003), and may “be overturned only for ‘manifest error.’ ” Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 843 (6th Cir.1999) (quoting Patton, 467 U.S. at 1031, 104 S.Ct. 2885). “[P]art of the guarantee of a defendant’s right to an impartial jury is an adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors.” Morgan, 504 U.S. at 729, 112 S.Ct. 2222. “Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge’s responsibility to remove prospective jurors who will not be able impartially to follow the court’s instructions and evaluate the evidence cannot be fulfilled.” Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188, 101 S.Ct. 1629, 68 L.Ed.2d 22 (1981). However, “[t]he adequacy of voir dire is not easily the subject of appellate review,” Morgan, 504 U.S. at 730, 112 S.Ct. 2222, and “the trial court retains great latitude in deciding what questions should be asked on voir dire.” Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 424, 111 S.Ct. 1899, 114 L.Ed.2d 493 (1991). Of course, when reviewing a state court’s conduct of voir dire, a federal ha-beas court’s “authority is limited to enforcing the commands of the United States Constitution.” Id. at 422, 111 S.Ct. 1899. A state court’s refusal to pose “constitutionally compelled” questions merits habe-as relief. Id. at 424-26, 111 S.Ct. 1899. Questions are “constitutionally compelled” only if “the trial court’s failure to ask these questions [renders] the defendant’s trial fundamentally unfair.” Id. at 425-26, 111 S.Ct. 1899. Because the “[preservation of the opportunity to prove actual bias is a guarantee of a defendant’s right to an impartial jury.” Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, 171-72, 70 S.Ct. 519, 94 L.Ed. 734 (1950), questions directed at potential bias may be constitutionally compelled. For example, when faced with the prospect of racial bias, a federal habeas court must inquire whether “under all of the circumstances presented there was a constitutionally significant likelihood that, absent questioning about racial prejudice, the jurors would not be as ‘indifferent as (they stand) unsworne.’ ” Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 596, 96 S.Ct. 1017, 47 L.Ed.2d 258 (1976) (quoting Coke on Littleton 155b (19th ed. 1832)); see also Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28, 36-37, 106 S.Ct. 1683, 90 L.Ed.2d 27 (1986) (holding that a capital defendant accused of an interracial crime is entitled to have prospective jurors informed of the race of the victim and questioned on the issue of racial bias). However, the Supreme Court has “stressed the wide discretion granted to the trial court in conducting voir dire in the area of pretrial publicity and in other areas of inquiry that might tend to show juror bias.” Mu’Min, 500 U.S. at 427, 111 S.Ct. 1899. Clearly established Supreme Court precedent dictates that “[w]hen a trial court is presented with evidence that an extrinsic influence has reached the jury which has a reasonable potential for tainting that jury, due process requires that the trial court take steps to determine what the effect of such extraneous information actually was on that jury.” Nevers v. Killinger, 169 F.3d 352, 373 (6th Cir.1999), overruled on other grounds by Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.2000); cf. United States v. Rigsby, 45 F.3d 120, 124-25 (6th Cir.1995) (“When there is a credible allegation of extraneous influences, the court must investigate sufficiently to assure itself that constitutional rights of the criminal defendant have not been violated.”); United States v. Shackelford, 777 F.2d 1141, 1145 (6th Cir.1985) (“A trial court’s refusal to permit an evidentiary hearing may constitute abuse of discretion when the alleged jury misconduct involves extrinsic influences.”). Extrinsic influences include, for example, an attempt to bribe a juror, a juror’s application for a job in the district attorney’s office, and newspaper articles and media attention. United States v. Herndon, 156 F.3d 629, 635 (6th Cir.1998). As indicated above, “[t]here is no per se rule that mere exposure to media reports about a case merits exclusion of a juror.” McQueen v. Scroggy, 99 F.3d 1302, 1319 (6th Cir.1996); see also DeLisle v. Rivers, 161 F.3d 370, 382 (6th Cir.1998) (en banc) (“[M]ere prior knowledge of the existence of the case, or familiarity with the issues involved, or even some preexisting opinion as to the merits, does not in and of itself raise a presumption of jury taint.”). “To the contrary, in order to merit disqualification of a juror, the media reports must engender a predisposition or bias that cannot be put aside, requiring the jury to decide a case one way or the other.” McQueen, 99 F.3d at 1319. Generally, a defendant’s right to an impartial jury is secured if a juror attests that he can set aside any information he has obtained and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. Irvin, 366 U.S. at 722-23, 81 S.Ct. 1639; DeLisle, 161 F.3d at 382. However, in “extraordinary” cases, DeLisle, 161 F.3d at 382, where the trial atmosphere has been “utterly corrupted by press coverage,” Murphy, 421 U.S. at 798, 95 S.Ct. 2031, a court must presume that pre-trial publicity has engendered prejudice in the members of the venire. See, e.g., Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 358, 363, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966) (finding that “inherently prejudicial publicity [ ] saturated the community” and that a “carnival atmosphere” reigned at trial); Irvin, 366 U.S. at 726, 81 S.Ct. 1639 (“[C]ontinued adverse publicity caused a sustained excitement and fostered a strong prejudice” among the people of the county.). Finally, in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984), the Supreme Court devised a test for determining whether a juror’s non-disclosure during voir dire necessitates a new trial. To obtain a new trial, a party “must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Id. at 556, 104 S.Ct. 845. “The motives for concealing information,” the court explained, “may vary, but only those reasons that affect a juror’s impartiality can truly be said to affect the fairness of a trial.” Id. Thus, McDonough teaches that the deliberate concealment of information on voir dire does not automatically give rise to a presumption of bias. Zerka v. Green, 49 F.3d 1181, 1186 (6th Cir.1995). “If a juror is found to have deliberately concealed material information, bias may be inferred. If, however, information is not concealed deliberately, the movant must show actual bias.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). B. Trial Court’s Refusal to Reexamine Juror Eddleman Williams argues that the trial court imperiled his right to an impartial jury by failing to dismiss Juror Eddleman for bias after evidence arose which arguably indicated that she concealed prior knowledge of the case during voir dire and by refusing to reexamine Eddleman in light of that evidence. We conclude that the Ohio Supreme Court did not unreasonably determine that Eddleman was not biased and did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law in holding that the trial court had not abused its discretion by refusing to reexamine Eddleman. During voir dire, Eddleman denied having any prior knowledge of the case. Later in voir dire, another venireman, Juror Parsons, claimed that Eddleman had told her that Eddleman “heard [the case] was from Youngstown and it had something to do with drugs,” but that Eddleman “didn’t know if that was true.” J.A. at 2765. Under further questioning, Parsons elucidated, To tell you the truth, I was only half listening because I don’t know if she had her information correct. She said that she had spoken to someone who lived in Youngstown and was familiar with the case and that it involved drugs and that’s all she knew and that’s all she told me, who read it in the newspaper, I believe. And that’s basically all she knew. I don’t even know, like I said, if that’s correct. She didn’t know if that’s correct. J.A. at 2782. She further explained, I don’t know whether she herself had the conversation. She said — like I said, I was only half listening because I didn’t know if it was true or not and really didn’t care. I don’t know whether it was someone in her family had spoken to someone in Youngstown or she had spoken to this person or whatever. But the gist of what I got was just what I told the Judge, that someone had told her, and I don’t know if it was her husband talked to someone or whatever, just that there was a case in Youngstown and it involved drugs. Oh, there was something else. I said, “This case is two years old, who can remember what you read two years ago?” And she said — I said, “Why would it take two years for the case to come to court?” And she said they were unable to find the gentleman. I forgot about that. And that was all that was said. J.A. at 2784-85. Later, defense counsel requested that the court reexamine Eddleman in light of Parsons’s testimony. J.A. at 3026-27. The court tentatively denied the request, but agreed to give the matter further consideration. J.A. at 3032-33. However, at this time, the court did give a general instruction to the venire admonishing the members not to discuss the case among themselves or with others and to avoid media reports about the case. J.A. at 3033-35. Additionally, in its preliminary instruction to the jury, the court ordered the jurors to disregard any information about the case from an outside source and not to repeat any such information to other jurors. J.A. at 3617. The court never called Eddleman back for further questioning. At the start of trial, Williams moved for a mistrial, arguing, inter alia, that the court had jeopardized Williams’s right to a fair trial by refusing to reexamine Eddle-man, who was seated on the jury, in order to determine whether Eddleman had deliberately concealed prior knowledge of the case and whether any prior knowledge of the case had prejudiced Eddleman. J.A. at 617-18. The court denied Williams’s motion, reasoning that “[a]ll of the jurors selected testified that they would be fair, impartial and base their verdict solely upon the evidence presented at trial.” J.A. at 892. Both the Ohio Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court held that the trial court had not abused its discretion by refusing to examine Eddleman further. The Ohio Court of Appeals found that Eddle-man had not deliberately concealed her knowledge of the case, as Eddleman’s responses to the court’s questions “were not necessarily inconsistent” with the remarks later attributed to her by Parson because “at best, [Eddleman] seemed to have heard some gossip, the truth of which was uncertain.” State v. Williams, 1995 WL 641137, at *7 (1995). The court further determined that, even if Eddleman had deliberately concealed information, “this fact would not inescapably lead to a presumption of bias” because “[t]he information that Eddleman purportedly knew and concealed — that the case was from Youngstown, it involved drugs, and that the state was unable to locate Williams for a period of time — consisted of elemental facts concerning the case.” Id. Because Williams had not challenged Eddleman for cause on the ground of deliberate concealment, the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed his claim under Ohio’s plain error rule. State v. Williams, 79 Ohio St.3d 1, 679 N.E.2d 646, 652 (1997). The court found that Eddleman had not “deliberately concealed the conversation because she did not know whether those rumors were true. Thus, her voir dire response was truthful — she did not know anything about the case.” Id. The court also held that the trial court sufficiently inquired into the alleged misconduct. Id. at 652-53. The chief justice, joined by another justice, dissented, stating that the majority’s “strained and unlikely interpretation of Eddleman’s response” neither eliminated “legitimate concerns of concealment” nor absolved the trial court of “the obligation to investigate further in defense of Williams’s constitutional rights.” Id. at 665 (Moyer, C.J., dissenting). In his federal habeas petition, Williams asserted that the trial court “abused its discretion” by failing to reexamine Eddle-man to determine whether she “had improperly answered or evaded inquiries concerning [her] knowledge of the defendant or the ease.” J.A. at 31. The district court rejected Williams’s argument, concluding that the state courts’ findings that Eddleman was not biased and had not deliberately concealed material information were not unreasonable. J.A. at 143. It stated, “accepting the testimony that Eddleman was not aware of the accuracy of her statements, the court’s determination that Eddleman’s responses on voir dire were truthful is not unreasonable in light of the facts presented.” J.A. at 144. On appeal, Williams contends that Ed-dleman was biased against him and that the trial court “abused its discretion” when it refused to recall Eddleman for further questioning. Though Williams’s argument is somewhat muddy, there are three distinct circumstances possibly underpinning his claim of bias. First, Eddleman may have lied about her prior knowledge of the case on voir dire Second, Eddleman knew that Williams’s case “involved drugs,” that the case originated in Youngstown, and that Williams had eluded the authorities. Third, Eddleman learned of this information through a conversation with a third party, most likely an acquaintance in Youngstown or a member of her family (who in turn had learned of the information from someone in Youngstown). In light of the record as it exists, the Ohio courts did not unreasonably determine that Eddleman was not biased. Williams insists that bias should be attributed to Eddleman because she lied about her prior knowledge of the case on voir dire. However, the record does not establish that Eddleman deliberately concealed information on voir dire because there are eminently reasonable explanations for her negative answer to the trial court’s question, “Do you know anything about this case?” See Jones v. Cooper, 311 F.3d 306, 311-12 (4th Cir.2002) (“Given these eminently reasonable explanations for the supposed discrepancies between the juror’s voir dire answers and the statements to the investigator, there is simply no basis upon which to conclude that the juror lied....”). Eddleman may have misunderstood the court’s question or her “knowledge” of the case may have temporarily slipped her mind. Or, as the Ohio Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court recognized, Eddleman may have responded truthfully as her “knowledge” consisted of “gossip” of questionable veracity. Moreover, as discussed infra, even if Eddleman deliberately concealed information, that fact alone does not give rise to a presumption of bias. Thus, Williams cannot use Eddleman’s alleged lie to show that the Ohio Supreme Court unreasonably determined that Eddleman was not biased. Nor do the substance or the source of Eddleman’s prior knowledge of the case demonstrate that the Ohio courts unreasonably determined that Eddleman was not biased. “[I]n order to merit disqualification of a juror, the media reports must engender a predisposition or bias that cannot be put aside,” McQueen, 99 F.3d at 1319, and, as the Ohio Court of Appeals observed, the information that Eddleman purportedly concealed consisted of “elemental facts,” Williams, 1995 WL 641137, at *7, which Eddleman learned anyway in the course of the trial. Finally, there is no indication that the source of Eddleman’s information attempted to influence Eddle-man in any manner. The rub, then, is whether the Ohio Supreme Court unreasonably applied Ristaino, Mu’Min, or other Supreme Court precedent on jury bias and the conduct of voir dire when it denied Williams’s request to reexamine Eddleman. Ideally, of course, the trial court would have called Eddleman back for further questioning in order to determine whether in fact Eddleman had prior knowledge of the case, whether any prior knowledge left her with any impressions or opinions concerning the case, whether she could set aside any such impressions or opinions, and whether she deliberately concealed any prior knowledge. Upon final analysis, though, we cannot say that the trial court’s failure to recall Eddleman rendered Williams’s trial fundamentally unfair. Mu’Min, 500 U.S. at 425-26, 111 S.Ct. 1899. The Sixth Amendment does not obligate state trial courts to investigate every allegation of bias or juror misconduct. See id. at 427, 111 S.Ct. 1899 (noting the “wide discretion granted to the trial court in conducting voir dire in the area of pretrial publicity and in other areas of inquiry that might tend to show juror bias”); Szuchon v. Lehman, 273 F.3d 299, 313 (3d Cir.2001); cf. United States v. Rigsby, 45 F.3d 120, 125 (6th Cir.1995). Rather, a constitutional duty of inquiry arises only when “under the circumstances presented there was a constitutionally significant likelihood that, absent questioning about [the potential bias], the jurors would not be as indifferent as (they stand) unsworne,” Ristaino, 424 U.S. at 596, 96 S.Ct. 1017 (internal quotation marks omitted), or when “a trial court is presented with evidence that an extrinsic influence has reached the jury which has a reasonable potential for tainting that jury.” Nevers, 169 F.3d at 373. Here, Williams has not shown that the Ohio appellate courts unreasonably concluded that there was no constitutionally significant likelihood that, absent questioning of Eddleman about her prior knowledge of the case, a biased juror (Eddle-man) would sit on Williams’s jury. Williams’s primary argument, as far as we can tell, is that further inquiry would have disclosed that Eddleman lied in response to the trial court’s question about her “knowledge” of the case and that this act of dishonesty would have enabled Williams to challenge Eddleman for cause on the ground of bias. The Ohio Supreme Court’s finding on a limited record that Eddleman responded truthfully to the court’s question does not logically foreclose Williams’s argument that further questioning should have been allowed so that Williams could demonstrate the contrary, but the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion can fairly be read as an explanation for why further inquiry was not constitutionally required. Overall, it was unlikely, at best, that Eddleman deliberately concealed her “knowledge” of the case. Williams offers no rationale for Eddleman’s alleged prevarication, and it appears most probable that Eddleman either deemed the “gossip” unresponsive to the court’s question, as the Ohio appellate courts supposed, or misapprehended the question. The Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion thus reasonably supports the trial court’s determination not to have Eddleman questioned further. Moreover, even if Eddleman had deliberately concealed prior knowledge of the case, this conduct would not have given rise to a presumption of bias on her part. As discussed earlier, a court may, but need not, presume bias if a juror deliberately conceals material information on voir dire. Zerka, 49 F.3d at 1186; see also Fuller v. Bowersox, 202 F.3d 1053, 1056 (8th Cir.2000) (holding that “a juror’s apparent dishonesty is not a sufficient predicate to obtaining a new trial” (internal quotation marks and punctuation omitted)); United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 69 (2d Cir.1993) (refusing to recognize “a per se rule based simply on whether a prospective juror had lied, without respect to whether the dishonesty had a bearing on her impartiality”); cf. United States v. Boney, 977 F.2d 624, 634 (D.C.Cir.1992) (refusing to hold that “any false statement or deliberate concealment by a juror necessitates an evidentiary hearing”). As the Supreme Court has held, “[t]he motives for concealing information may vary, but only those reasons that affect a juror’s impartiality can truly be said to affect the fairness of a trial.” McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556, 104 S.Ct. 845. Thus, courts have presumed bias in cases where a juror has engaged in a pattern of deceit or has concealed information that bears on his impartiality. For instance, Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 441-42, 120 S.Ct. 1479, 146 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), held that an evidentia-ry hearing was merited where a juror had concealed that she had been represented by the prosecutor in her divorce and that she had been married to a state witness, a deputy sheriff. And in Fields v. Woodford, 309 F.3d 1095, 1105-06 (9th Cir.2002), the court held that an evidentiary hearing was necessary because a juror in a rape case concealed the fact that his wife had been raped. See also Green v. White, 232 F.3d 671, 677-78 (9th Cir.2000) (a juror repeatedly concealed his prior conviction in order to get on the jury and stated during jury deliberations that he knew the defendant was guilty the minute he saw him and he wished he could get a gun and shoot the defendant himself); Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 982-83 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc) (a juror in a murder trial lied repeatedly about her brother’s murder and refused to admit that certain of her relatives had been accused of crimes and that she herself had been a crime victim). Conversely, courts have refused to presume bias where the juror’s dishonesty does not suggest partiality. The court in Solis v. Cockrell, 342 F.3d 392, 393, 399 (5th Cir.2003), refused to presume bias where a juror failed to reveal the fact that he lived near the defendant and had “known of’ the defendant for more than 20 years. The court in Jones held that a juror’s failure to disclose that she had relatives who had been arrested or subject to trials did not create an implication of bias. 311 F.3d at 311, 313. And in Langford, the court found no bias because the juror gave false answers to avoid embarrassment. 990 F.2d at 69-70. In the case at bar, Williams offers no explanation as to how a finding that Eddle-man deliberately concealed her “knowledge” of the case might lead to a finding that Eddleman was biased, and we have identified none. Further, as the Ohio Court of Appeals concluded, the substance of the purportedly concealed information would not have enabled Williams to challenge Eddleman for cause. Neither knowledge of “elemental facts,” which were disclosed at trial, nor a conversation with a family member or a friend about the case, prior to impanelment, would disable Eddleman from serving as an impartial juror. As we said in Scott v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 854, 879 (6th Cir.2000), “[a]llegations of jury bias must be viewed with skepticism when the challenged influence occurred before the jurors took their oath to be impartial.” In summary, Williams has not explained how further questioning of Eddleman might have yielded a finding that Eddleman was biased. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the Ohio courts unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in refusing to reexamine Eddleman. C. Juror Rohwedder’s “Fear” Williams’s contention that Juror Rohwedder was biased because she overheard conversations among other veniremen about “fear” of Williams is without merit. During voir dire, Rohwedder reported that she overheard “chatting” and “gossip” among other members of the venire about the case. J.A. at 3080. When asked whether she heard anyone say “anything about being afraid of Mr. Williams or his family,” she responded, “Maybe in a general sense, that because of the nature of the case there’s fear.” J.A. at 3080-81. She elaborated, I think there’s a very high emotional level right now and with all, like you said, the waiting, the speculation, the not knowing, the anxiety part of it, and it’s very unnecessary. I feel that a lot of it has just mushroomed and it’s too bad because you don’t have to be talking 24 hours a day, you don’t have to be worrying about things that you shouldn’t have to worry about. I find fault with that part of the process. J.A. at 3081. However, she volunteered, “I don’t think anything that has been said in my presence has affected my opinion of anything. I’m just here to do what you ask me to do.” J.A. at 3081-82. Also during voir dire, Rohwedder opined that “[i]t’s not just an ordinary day at the courthouse” because people" entering the courthouse were required to pass through security, and she admitted “[i]t’s a little unnerving.” J.A. at 3082. However, the judge clarified that the security system had not been put in place for Williams’s trial but instead had been implemented earlier in the year. J.A. at 3083-84. Specifically, he advised that “since this case started I think all the employees go through it, or basically. I think that’s the only change. We’ve had the security for months. And it had nothing to do with this case at all. It had to do with the judges wanting more security in the building.” J.A. at 3084. When asked whether “there is an impression in your mind then that Mr. Williams probably did this and that’s why there has to be extra security,” Rohwedder replied, “Not necessarily. I think everybody has to be guarded. There’s a problem. You know, here we are.” J.A. at 3085. Williams did not challenge Rohwedder for cause and mentioned Rohwedder only in passing in his motion for a mistrial. Nevertheless, neither of the Ohio appellate courts invoked the plain error rule in reviewing Williams’s claim. The Ohio Court of Appeals held that the trial court had not abused its discretion by failing to conduct further inquiry as to Rohwedder, noting that “Rohwedder stated that the venire members talked about the trial, but that no specifics were discussed.” Williams, 1995 WL 641137, at *7. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the trial court had not abused its discretion by permitting Rohwedder to sit on the jury, explaining that, although Williams claimed that Rohwedder “was biased because she allegedly overheard discussion about security and possible retaliation ... Rohwedder indicated that she had heard no such discussion.” Williams, 679 N.E.2d at 652. In his federal habeas petition, Williams referred to Rohwedder’s testimony regarding “juror discussion about fear of the defendant” and her “observation of heightened security,” in the course of arguing that the trial court failed to examine potential jurors “to assure [Williams] that an impartial jury was impaneled.” J.A. at 30, 32. Interpreting the mention of Rohwed-der as a challenge to Rohwedder’s impartiality, the district court held that “the state court was reasonable in determining that Rohwedder was not biased.” J.A. at 144. On appeal, Williams adopts the district court’s construction of his claim, arguing that Rohwedder “was clearly biased as she testified to juror discussion about fear of [Williams] and that the observation of heightened security increased the emotional level of jurors.” Whatever the particulars of his claim, Williams has not shown that the trial court acted unreasonably with regard to Rohwedder. Williams has not explained what further questioning of Rohwedder was, in his estimation, constitutionally required. Likewise, the charge of bias is without merit. Rohwedder testified that she had heard “[n]othing specific” concerning juror fear of Williams, and that she did not think that “anything that has been said in my presence has affected my opinion of anything.” J.A. at 3080-81. Similarly, after the court clarified that security at the courthouse had not been heightened due to Williams’s trial but rather had been improved months earlier, Rohwedder indicated that this would not affect her impartiality. J.A. at 3083-85. In light of Rohwedder’s declarations of impartiality, the Ohio courts’ finding of impartiality was a reasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented, and Williams has not succeeded in rebutting the presumption of correctness afforded this finding. Simply put, Williams has not identified any constitutional error possibly meriting habeas relief in the trial court’s treatment of Rohwed-der. D. Trial Court’s Failure to Conduct Additional Voir Dire In the course of challenging the seating of Eddleman and Rohwedder on the jury, Williams asserts that the trial judge failed “to properly discharge his duty to guarantee, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that Petitioner received a fair trial from twelve jurors. In the face of actual juror misconduct and bias, the trial judge limited the voir dire examination of suspect jurors and abdicated his responsibilities altogether to make further inquiry.” To the extent that this statement represents a challenge to the trial court’s failure to conduct additional voir dire of jurors other than Eddleman and Rohwedder, Williams’s claim falls short. Williams has not shown that pre-trial publicity rose to a level which infringed his right to a fair trial. See Hill, 199 F.3d at 844. Nor has he identified any particular juror who sat on his case, other than Eddleman and Rohwedder, who he believes was prejudiced against him. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the trial judge had not acted “unreasonably or arbitrarily restricted examination or investigation into the preconceptions of prospective jurors.” Williams, 679 N.E.2d at 653. As Williams offers only the above-quoted passage in support of any claim, we cannot say that the Ohio Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law. III. Challenges for Cause to “Automatic Death Penalty” Jurors The Ohio courts did not unreasonably apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992), in denying Williams’s challenges for cause to a pair of alleged “automatic death penalty” jurors. A. Legal Standard A capital defendant may challenge for cause any “automatic death penalty” juror — ie., any juror who would “vote to impose death automatically if the jury found the defendant guilty.” Morgan, 504 U.S. at 728, 112 S.Ct. 2222. As a general rule, a defendant may excuse a juror for cause if “the juror’s views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Id. (quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985)). Applying this rule in the capital context, “[a] juror who will automatically vote for the death penalty in every case will fail in good faith to consider the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances as the instructions require him to do.” Id. at 729, 112 S.Ct. 2222. “Therefore, based on the requirement of impartiality embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a juror may challenge for cause any prospective juror who maintains such views.” Id. A trial court’s finding as to a juror’s impartiality is a factual determination entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). See Bowling v. Parker, 344 F.3d 487, 519 (6th Cir.2003); Miniel v. Cockrell, 339 F.3d 331, 338-39 (5th Cir.2003). “[O]ur review is deferential, respecting the trial judge’s proximity to the venire and the determinations of credibility and demeanor that voir dire involves.” Wolfe v. Brigano, 232 F.3d 499, 502 (6th Cir.2000). “The question is not whether the trial judge was wrong or right in his determination of impartiality, but merely whether his decision was ‘fairly supported by the record.’ ” Bowling, 344 F.3d at 519 (quoting Witt, 469 U.S. at 433, 105 S.Ct. 844). B. Challenge for Cause to Juror Ed-dleman The state courts did not make an unreasonable determination of fact in denying Williams’s challenge for cause to Juror Eddleman. Initially, when questioned by the court, Eddleman expressed her reluctance to impose the death penalty. Later, when pressed by defense counsel, Eddleman did testify that she would “probably” sentence a capital defendant to death, given that any life sentence would carry with it parole eligibility. However, she professed a “dislike” of all the sentencing options, and described a vote for a sentence of death as a “difficult decision.” More importantly, later, in response to specific questioning by the trial court and defense counsel, she stated that she could follow the court’s instructions and recommend a sentence of life imprisonment with parole eligibility if the aggravating circumstances did not outweigh the mitigating factors. Thus, the trial court’s conclusion that Eddleman could serve impartially is fairly supported by the record. The court asked Eddleman several questions at the outset concerning her willingness to recommend a death sentence to the court. COURT: ... If you find yourself in that situation, could you make such a recommendation to the Court, that is, the defendant receive the death sentence? JUROR EDDLEMAN: I believe in the death sentence but I think I would have a hard time deciding that’s what— THE COURT: It is a difficult decision to make. JUROR EDDLEMAN: It is. THE COURT: There is no question about it. JUROR EDDLEMAN: The way I look at it is if you were going to say the death sentence, that you should be willing to be one of the ones that would be there and push the button or pull the lever, whatever they do. And I just don’t think I could do that. THE COURT: Nor would you ever be asked to. JUROR EDDLEMAN: I know that. THE COURT: However, the Court will give you instructions of law, both at the end of the first phase and also at the end of the second phase. JUROR EDDLEMAN: Uh-huh. THE COURT: And you and the balance of the jury would weigh in the second phase the aggravating circumstances against the mitigation — mitigating factors. JUROR EDDLEMAN: Right. THE COURT: And if you unanimously find the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating factors, then you would be required to make a recommendation of death sentence. The converse is true if you don’t find that. That is, if the State fails to prove the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating factors, then you have to recommend a life sentence and then decide which life sentence: 20 to life or 30 to life. JUROR EDDLEMAN: I understand. Okay. THE COURT: Now, I know it’s not easy. Could you follow the instructions of the Court? JUROR EDDLEMAN: Yes, I could. J.A. at 2718-19. Later during voir dire, defense counsel questioned Eddleman at length about her ability to impose a life sentence with parole eligibility. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: The flip side of the sentencing issue, which I’m interested in, is whether or not you would fairly consider the two life imprisonment sentencing alternatives if you were ever called upon to determine the sentence. Do you know what those two alternative are? The judge discussed them with you. JUROR EDDLEMAN: Life. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: With parole eligibility after serving 20 full years is one alternative. The other is life with parole eligibility after serving 30 full years. JUROR EDDLEMAN: No, I wouldn’t. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I’m sorry, you wouldn’t? • JUROR EDDLEMAN: If he was convicted of the murders I would say no, I would not consider that with parole. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. Do you want to tell me why not? JUROR EDDLEMAN: Because if the murders were committed I don’t — I don’t .believe that they should ever be released. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I will candidly tell you that I am now a little concerned that you cannot fairly consider the two life sentencing options. My concern is based upon what you just told me about being unable to consider them if the defendant was eligible for parole at some point in time. JUROR EDDLEMAN: I wouldn’t — I do not believe that there should even be parole considered if somebody would have committed the murder. That’s what I mean. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I understand. I understand that that’s how you feel and there are whole segments of society that feel the same way you do. I may feel the same way you do. But how I feel doesn’t account for anything in this case. And how you feel about eligibility for parole only bears upon this case if you cannot set your feelings aside and follow the instructions of the Court. Am I making sense so far? JUROR EDDLEMAN: Just a minute. So I would — well, what I’m saying, I would not believe in the parole so therefore I would not be able to, if it was not the death sentence, I would not feel comfortable with the 20 year and the parole or the 30 year and the parole. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I understand that’s what you are saying. Are you telling me that if the defendant were convicted, that because there’s a possibility of parole after 20 years or after 30 years that you would automatically vote for the death penalty? JUROR EDDLEMAN: Oh— [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Would you? JUROR EDDLEMAN: No. I couldn’t say that. I guess I don’t like any three of the choices, is what I’m saying. * * * [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So that may make the rest of this easy since you don’t like either of the three. Do you dislike them equally or do you dislike one more than the others? JUROR EDDLEMAN: Let’s see. I would say I dislike all of them. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. JUROR EDDLEMAN: I mean, you know. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: What are we going to do about that? You dislike all that. JUROR EDDLEMAN: Change the rules. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Call our legislators, see if we can get a quick— JUROR EDDLEMAN: Yes. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You understand that you only have those three options if you get to the point— JUROR EDDLEMAN: Those three options, if it came right down to it, it would probably be the death penalty then. If there was any remote chance of them being paroled, I would probably go with the death penalty. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Automatically, just because