Jeffrey A. WOGENSTAHL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Betty MITCHELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, 668 F.3d 307

GIBBONS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which McKEAGUE, J., joined. MOORE, J. (pp. 343 - 44), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment. OPINION JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner-appellant Jeffrey A. Wogenstahl appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from both his conviction for aggravated murder with death specifications and his resulting death sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court and deny Wogenstahl’s petition. I.

The facts underlying Wogenstahl’s habeas case, as determined by the Ohio Supreme Court, are as follows: Peggy Garrett was first introduced to Jeffrey A. Wogenstahl, appellant, in October 1991. During October and November 1991, [Wogenstahl] and Peggy became casual acquaintances. At the time, Peggy resided in a two-bedroom apartment at 301 Harrison Avenue, Harrison, Ohio, with her five children: Eric Horn, age sixteen, Justin Horn, age fifteen, Amber Garrett, age ten, Matthew Garrett, age eight, and Shayna Perkins, age four.

During October and November 1991, [Wogenstahl] visited the apartment on several occasions and came to know Peggy’s family. [Wogenstahl] went to Peggy’s apartment on Saturday afternoon, November 23, 1991. He asked Peggy if she had any plans for the evening. Peggy told [Wogenstahl] that she had no plans, and [Wogenstahl] left following a brief conversation. That night, Peggy put her three youngest children (Amber, Matthew and Shayna) to bed for the evening. At approximately 10:30 p.m., she decided to meet a friend, Lynn Williams, at a local bar. Justin was spending the weekend at a friend’s house.

Peggy left sixteen-year-old Eric in charge of the other children. Peggy met Lynn Williams at the “Escape” bar sometime between 11:00 p.m. and midnight. From there, the women drove Lynn’s car to the Miamitown Lounge, which was also known as “Hornsby’s.” At Hornsby’s, Peggy and Lynn saw [Wogenstahl] at the bar. He was wearing a brown leather jacket and jeans. [Wogenstahl] joined the women for drinks and conversation. [Wogenstahl] asked Peggy where Justin was and what Eric and the other children were doing.

Peggy told [Wogenstahl] that Justin was away for the weekend, and that Eric was home baby-sitting the children. At some point, the trio went outside to [Wogenstahl’s] car to smoke marijuana. On Sunday morning, at approximately 2:15 a.m., [Wogenstahl], Peggy and Lynn drove Lynn’s car to the Flicker Inn. Later, the women drove [Wogenstahl] back to Hornsby’s, where appellant’s car was parked. [Wogenstahl] invited the women to his apartment to smoke marijuana, but Peggy and Lynn told [Wogenstahl] that they were going to the Waffle House restaurant.

Peggy and Lynn then separated from [Wogenstahl] and drove directly to the Waffle House. After the women had arrived at the restaurant, a witness saw a car resembling [Wogenstahl’s] dark-brown four-door 1978 Oldsmobile Omega pull into and then out of the restaurant parking lot. At approximately 3:00 a.m., while the women were at the Waffle House, [Wogenstahl] drove to Peggy’s apartment and spoke with Eric. According to Eric, [Wogenstahl] claimed that Peggy needed to see him (Eric) at Troy Beard’s house. Beard was Peggy’s friend who lived approximately three blocks from the apartment.

Eric locked the door to the apartment, leaving the children unattended, and drove with [Wogenstahl] to the vicinity of Beard’s residence. [Wogenstahl] dropped Eric off approximately one block from Beard’s apartment. According to Eric, [Wogenstahl] said that he would drive around the block and then pick Eric up to drive him home. When Eric arrived at the residence, Beard told Eric that he (Beard) had not seen Peggy at all that evening. Eric left Beard’s apartment and waited for [Wogenstahl] to drive him home. [Wogenstahl] did not return.

Eventually, Eric walked home and found that the door to the apartment was unlocked. He checked on the children and noticed that ten-year-old Amber was missing. However, Eric mistakenly assumed that Amber might have been spending the night at a friend’s house. Thus, he mentioned nothing to Peggy when she returned home later that morning. On the morning of November 24, 1991, Vickie Mozena was working at a United Dairy Farmers store in Harrison, Ohio, near the Ohio-Indiana border.

At approximately 3:15 a.m., Mozena saw a car resembling [Wogenstahl’s] Oldsmobile drive past the store in the direction of Bright, Indiana. Mozena observed the silhouette of a man driving the vehicle, and what appeared to be a young girl next to him in the passenger’s seat. Between 3:45 and 4:00 a.m., Mozena saw the same vehicle parked at a car wash across the street from the United Dairy Farmers store. The vehicle pulled out of the car wash and into the farthest corner of the United Dairy Farmers parking lot.

The driver did not exit the vehicle for several minutes, and Mozena thought that she was about to be robbed. However, [Wogenstahl] exited the vehicle, came into the store, and purchased a pack of cigarettes. At that time, Mozena noticed what appeared to be dirt or blood under [Wogenstahl’s] fingernails. Later that morning, Mozena once again saw [Wogenstahl’s] car parked across the street at the ear wash. According to Mozena, there was a man inside the car, presumably cleaning the interior. Harold Borgman lived on Jamison Road between Harrison, Ohio, and Bright, Indiana.

Borgman’s home was located in a rural area of West Harrison, Indiana, approximately four miles from Harrison. At 3:13 a.m. on the morning of November 24, 1991, Borgman got out of bed to use the bathroom. Sometime later, he looked out the window and saw a car driving very slowly on Jamison Road toward the direction of Harrison. The driver pulled off to the side of Jami-son Road, stopped, and turned off the headlights. Borgman continued to watch for several minutes, and observed two or three vehicles pass the parked car on Jamison Road.

On November 24, at approximately 3:40 a.m., Brian Noel was driving on Jamison Road toward Bright, Indiana. While driving near the location of Borg-mans residence, Noel saw a late 19703-model, dark-colored four-door vehicle parked off to the side of Jamison Road, the vehicle facing the opposite direction. Noel came to a rolling stop alongside the vehicle and observed a man apparently-retrieving something from the trunk of the automobile. The man was wearing a dark jacket and blue jeans. Noel later identified [Wogenstahl] as the man he had seen on Jamison Road in the early morning hours of November 24.

He also identified [Wogenstahl’s] 1978 Oldsmobile as the car that had been pulled off to the side of Jamison Road. On November 24, at approximately 3:40 a.m., Kathy Roth was driving on Jamison Road toward Bright, Indiana. While driving near the location of Borg-man’s residence, Roth saw a man wearing a brown leather jacket and blue jeans standing near a parked car off to the side of Jamison Road. As Roth drove past the vehicle, the man turned to face her, dropped his head, and then turned around to face the woods. Roth later identified [Wogenstahl] as the man she had seen on Jamison Road. Frederick G.

Harms was driving on Jamison Road on November 24, at approximately 3:40 a.m. Harms also saw the vehicle parked off to the side of Jamison Road. According to Harms, the vehicle resembled [Wogenstahl’s] 1978 Oldsmobile Omega. On Sunday afternoon, November 24, Peggy Garrett finally realized that Amber was missing. At that time, Eric told Peggy about [Wogenstahl’s] 3:00 a.m. visit to the apartment. Peggy and others went to [Wogenstahl’s] residence and knocked on the door for over an hour.

When [Wogenstahl] finally answered, Peggy asked him why he had taken Eric to Troy Beard’s apartment earlier that morning. [Wogenstahl] stated that he had been “messing with Eric’s head,” and claimed to have no knowledge of Amber’s whereabouts. On the evening of November 24, 1991, [Wogenstahl] gave a similar statement to Officer Charles Lindsey of the Harrison Police Department. On Monday, November 25, 1991, police executed a search warrant at [Wogenstahl’s] residence.

During the search, [Wogenstahl] was questioned concerning his movements on the morning of November 24. [Wogenstahl] admitted to having visited the Harrison Avenue apartment on November 24 at approximately 3:00 a.m. [Wogenstahl] told police that he had duped Eric out of the Harrison Avenue apartment as a practical joke. However, [Wogenstahl] stated that he went directly home to bed after having taken Eric to the vicinity of Troy Beard’s apartment.

Police then requested that [Wogenstahl] accompany them to the Harrison Police Department. [Wogenstahl] agreed to go to the police station and asked for his leather jacket. Officer Lindsey retrieved the jacket from the bedroom closet. Lindsey noticed that the jacket was soaking wet and that the lining was discolored. According to police, [Wogenstahl] explained that his cat had urinated on the jacket on Friday evening, November 22, 1991. [Wogenstahl] further explained that he had washed the jacket on Friday night. Police were suspicious, since [Wogenstahl] had worn the jacket on Saturday night, November 23,1991.

Police found several bloodstains in [Wogenstahl’s] bathroom. However, it could not be determined whether the blood was human blood. The items seized from [Wogenstahl’s] residence included drugs and drug paraphernalia. Police contacted [Wogenstahl’s] parole officer, and a parole holder was placed against [Wogenstahl]. On November 25, 1991, police also attempted to search a dumpster near [Wogenstahl’s] apartment. However, the dumpster had been emptied earlier that morning. Two witnesses had seen [Wogenstahl] near the dumpster on November 24, at approximately 5:15 a.m.

On the morning of November 27, 1991, [Wogenstahl] made another statement to law enforcement authorities. This time, [Wogenstahl] claimed that he had driven Eric to the vicinity of Troy Beard’s apartment on November 24 because Eric had wanted to deliver marijuana to Peggy. [Wogenstahl] once again asserted that he had proceeded directly home to sleep after dropping Eric off in the vicinity of Beard’s residence. Meanwhile, the search for Amber Garrett continued. On November 27, 1991, Harold Borgman reported to police that he had seen a suspicious vehicle on Jamison Road in the early morning hours of November 24.

Borgman led police to the location near his house where he had seen the suspicious vehicle. Sergeant Kenneth J. Greves of the Indiana State Police searched the area and discovered Amber’s partially frozen body down a steep embankment off to the side of Jamison Road. The location where Amber’s body was discovered was heavily wooded and overgrown with thorny bushes and vegetation. Amber was wearing a dress and a pair of panties. Her dress had been rolled up from behind and pulled down over her arms. She had been stabbed approximately eleven times, mostly in the chest and neck.

Additionally, she had been repeatedly struck in the head with a blunt instrument. The blunt force injuries were consistent with having been caused by an automobile jack handle or some other blunt stick or rod. Superficial wounds on the body indicated that a knife had been held to the base of Amber’s neck. The body was covered with postmortem scratches that had apparently been caused by the vegetation in the area. The evidence at the scene indicated that the murder had occurred at a different location and that the killer had carried Amber’s body through the dense vegetation. William L.

Dean, a criminalist in the Trace Evidence

Section of the Hamilton County Coroner’s Laboratory, examined the leather jacket that [Wogenstahl] had been wearing on the morning of Amber’s abduction. Thorn tips or “prickles” were removed from small triangular tears in the jacket. Dean also examined a pair of [Wogenstahl’s] shoes that were found to contain prickles and other plant material. Douglas W. Deedrick, a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, compared the plant material recovered from [Wogenstahl’s] jacket and shoes with known samples of vegetation collected from the area where the body was discovered.

Deedrick found that the plant material from [Wogenstahl’s] clothing was similar to the vegetation collected from the crime scene. Additionally, Dr. Robert D. Webster, a research botanist, concluded that there were no differences between the vegetation recovered from [Wogenstahl’s] clothing and the type of vegetation in the area where the body was discovered. Police found two car jacks in the trunk of [Wogenstahl’s] Oldsmobile, a ratchet jack and a screw or “scissors” jack. The metal handle for the screw jack was missing. There were no identifiable fingerprints anywhere in the vehicle.

The car was exceptionally clean, as if it had been thoroughly washed. However, criminalists in the Trace Evidence

Section of the Hamilton County Coroner’s Laboratory found a very small bloodstain in [Wogenstahl’s] Oldsmobile. The specimen was sent to the Serological Research Institute in California for testing. DNA was extracted from the bloodstain and was tested using the HLA DQ (Haldo) Alpha genetic marker system. The HLA DQ Alpha classification of the blood removed from [Wogenstahl’s] vehicle was consistent with the HLA DQ Alpha classification of a known sample of Amber’s blood.

According to Brian Wraxall, a forensic serologist, Amber’s HLA DQ Alpha classification occurs in approximately 5.3 percent of the Caucasian population. The blood recovered from [Wogenstahl’s] vehicle was not consistent with appellant’s blood or blood samples taken from Eric and Justin Horn. Special Agent Deedrick of the Federal Bureau of Investigation found a single pubic hair inside the crotch area of Amber’s panties. Deedrick compared the pubic hair to known samples of pubic hair that had been combed and plucked from [Wogenstahl’s] pubic region.

According to Deedrick, [Wogenstahl] pubic hairs exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as the pubic hair recovered from the victim’s panties. Deedrick testified to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the pubic hair recovered from the victim’s underpants had come from [Wogenstahl]. Amber was prepubescent and, thus, the hair could not have come from her. Pubic hair samples taken from Peggy Garrett, Eric Horn and Justin Horn did not match the pubic hair recovered from Amber’s panties. [Wogenstahl] was indicted by the Hamilton County Grand Jury for the aggravated murder of Amber.

Count One of the indictment charged [Wogenstahl] for the purposeful killing of Amber during the commission of an aggravated burglary and/or [kidnaping]. This count of the indictment carried three death penalty specifications. [Wogenstahl] was also indicted, in Counts Two and Three, for [kidnaping] and aggravated burglary, respectively, with a specification alleging that [Wogenstahl] had a prior (1985) aggravated felony conviction. [Wogenstahl] was tried before a jury. Bruce Wheeler was the prosecution’s final witness in the guilt/innocence phase of the trial.

Wheeler and [Wogenstahl] had been fellow inmates in the same “pod” at the Hamilton County Justice Center. At trial, Wheeler testified that he had spoken with [Wogenstahl] on several occasions concerning [Wogenstahl’s] involvement in the killing. According to Wheeler, [Wogenstahl] had said that there was very little evidence against him because he had been “too slick” and had “covered up” the evidence. Further, [Wogenstahl] allegedly admitted to Wheeler that he ([Wogenstahl]) had entered the Garrett apartment with a stolen key and had [kidnaped] Amber to have sex with her.

Wheeler testified that [Wogenstahl] “said he stuck it in her but * * * [did not] ejaculate * * * so there would not be any evidence.” Additionally, [Wogenstahl] told Wheeler that he had wanted to return Amber to the apartment because he thought he could get away with having removed her from the residence. However, someone was at the Garrett residence when [Wogenstahl] attempted to return Amber to her home. Thus, according to Wheeler, [Wogenstahl] said that he decided to have “sex” with Amber once again.

Wheeler testified that [Wogenstahl] admitted stabbing Amber in the chest when she refused his further sexual advances. According to Wheeler, [Wogenstahl] admitted killing Amber, dumping the body, cleaning the car, and disposing of the evidence. [Wogenstahl] also told Wheeler that police had planted Amber’s blood in his ([Wogenstahl]) car because appellant had “cleaned his car too well.” The defense presented several witnesses in the guilt phase of [Wogenstahl’s] trial. [Wogenstahl] testified.on his own behalf and, among other things, denied the charges against him.

The jury found [Wogenstahl] guilty of all charges and specifications alleged in the indictment. Following a mitigation hearing, the jury recommended that [Wogenstahl] be sentenced to death for the aggravated murder of Amber Garrett. The trial court accepted the jury’s recommendation and imposed the sentence of death. The trial court also sentenced appellant for the [kidnaping] and aggravated burglary convictions. State v. Wogenstahl, 75 Ohio St.3d 344, 662 N.E.2d 311, 314-18 (1996) (footnote omitted). On direct appeal, Wogenstahl, represented by new counsel, set forth thirty-five grounds for relief.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed Wogenstahl’s conviction and sentence. State v. Wogenstahl, No. C-930222, 1994 WL 686898 (Ohio Ct.App. Nov. 30, 1994). Wogenstahl then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. In 1995, while Wogenstahl’s direct appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court was pending, Wogenstahl filed a pro se motion under Ohio App. R. 26(B), State v. Mumahan, 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204 (1992), to reopen his appeal in the Ohio Court of Appeals, seeking to argue that his appellate attorneys had performed ineffectively by failing to raise certain claims. See State v.

Wogenstahl, 75 Ohio St.3d 273, 662 N.E.2d 16 (1996). The Court of Appeals dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, noting that his claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (“IAAC”) should be raised on direct appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. Citing Ohio S.Ct. Prac. R. II(2)(D)(1), the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that Wogenstahl’s notice of appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court in his direct appeal had divested the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction to consider his motion to reopen. Id. at 17.

In 1996, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting thirty-three grounds for relief. State v. Wogenstahl, 75 Ohio St.3d 344, 662 N.E.2d 311 (1996). In this appeal, Wogenstahl was represented by one new attorney and one of the two attorneys who had been appointed for his appeal to the court of appeals. Later in 1996, Wogenstahl filed a state petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code § 2953.21, raising-five grounds for relief. See State v. Wogenstahl, No. C-970238, 1998 WL 306561 (Ohio Ct.App. June 12, 1998). The trial court denied relief.

On appeal, Wogenstahl raised four assignments of error, but the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Wogenstahl’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IATC) claims were barred by res judicata because he could have raised them on direct appeal. Id. at *2-3. The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Wogenstahl’s discretionary appeal because it did not involve any substantial constitutional question. State v. Wogenstahl, 83 Ohio St.3d 1449, 700 N.E.2d 332 (1998) (table).

In 1998, Wogenstahl filed in the trial court a motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial, urging the court “to order newly available, ‘significantly advanced’ DNA testing” on the blood evidence from his car. State v. Wogenstahl, No. C-980175,1999 WL 79052 (Ohio Ct.App. Feb. 19, 1999). The trial court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. Id. at *3—4. The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Wogenstahl’s discretionary appeal. State v. Wogenstahl, 85 Ohio St.3d 1497, 710 N.E.2d 716 (1999) (table).

Also in 1998, Wogenstahl filed in the Ohio Court of Appeals a pro se motion for leave to file a delayed application for Rule 26(

B) reopening in the Court of Appeals, alleging IAAC claims. See State v. Wogenstahl, 83 Ohio St.3d 516, 700 N.E.2d 1254 (1998). The Court of Appeals denied relief because Wogenstahl failed to show good cause for filing his application more than two years after Ohio S.Ct. Prac. R. II(2)(D)(1) was amended to provide that courts of appeals retained jurisdiction to rule on a Rule 26(

B) application to reopen while a direct appeal was pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. Id. at 1255. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that Wogenstahl had not shown good cause for the delay and that the Supreme Court had already rejected his IAAC claims on direct appeal. Id. at 1255-56. Wogenstahl filed his § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus in 1999, and he amended his petition in 2003 to set forth twenty-eight claims for relief, some of which included multiple subclaims.

After filing his § 2254 petition, Wogenstahl obtained information that the prosecution had withheld evidence that, prior to the 1993 trial, Eric Horn had been adjudicated delinquent for marijuana trafficking, contradicting his trial testimony that he never sold drugs. See State v. Wogenstahl, — Ohio App.3d-,-N.E.2d-,-, No. C039045, 2004 WL 2567655, at *3 (Ohio Ct.App. Nov. 12, 2004). In 2003, the federal district court held the § 2254 proceeding in abeyance so that Wogenstahl could exhaust this new Brady claim in state court. See id. The Ohio trial court denied his motion for a new trial. See id.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed. See id. at-, 2004 WL 2567655, at *8. The Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept Wogenstahl’s appeal. Wogenstahl’s habeas petition again proceeded. In 2007, a magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“R & R”) recommending dismissal of Wogenstahl’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The district court adopted the magistrate’s R & R in its entirety, concluding that Wogenstahl’s claims were without merit or procedurally defaulted, or both, and dismissed the petition. Wogenstahl v. Mitchell, No. 1:99-cv-843, 2007 WL 2688423 (S.D.Ohio Sept. 12, 2007).

Wogenstahl moved the district court to grant him a certificate of appealability (“COA”). The district court granted Wogenstahl a COA as to claims 1, 2(ii), 12(iv), 12(v), 12(ix), 14, 16, 22(iv), and 23, but denied him a COA as to claims 12(ii), 12(iii), 12(vi), 12(x), 12(xii), 12(xiii), 13(vi), 18, 21, and 27. Wogenstahl timely filed a notice of appeal. In 2009, our court granted Wogenstahl’s motion to expand the COA to include claims 12(ii), 12(iii), 12(vi), 12(x), 12(xii), and 13(vi) as well as those originally granted by the district court. II.

Wogenstahl has grouped his claims before our court into six categories, and we follow his groupings. First, Wogenstahl argues that the prosecution violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by withholding evidence that prosecution witness Eric Horn had sold and used marijuana, and suborned perjury in presenting Horn’s trial testimony that he had no involvement with marijuana (subclaim 2(h)).

Second, Wogenstahl contends that the prosecution violated his due process rights in the following ways: vouching for the credibility of state witnesses, denigrating defense counsel, confronting Wogenstahl, stating his personal opinion that Wogenstahl was lying, offering his personal opinions about the trial evidence, commenting on the defense’s failure to call certain witnesses, and otherwise inflaming the passions and prejudices of the jury at both the guilty and penalty phases (subclaims 12(h), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (ix), and (

x) and 22(iv)). Wogenstahl also makes a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel (subclaim 12(xi)) based on counsel’s failure to object to certain aspects of the prosecution’s closing arguments and a claim that the trial court erred in failing to rule on certain objections that were made (subclaim 12(xii)). Third, Wogenstahl argues that the prosecution engaged in misconduct by arguing that the nature and circumstances of the offense amounted to an aggravating circumstance that should be weighed against mitigating factors (claim 16).

Fourth, Wogenstahl argues that his trial counsel performed ineffectively by telling the jury at the guilt phase that if he thought Wogenstahl had actually committed the offense, he would tell the jury to “put him in the [electric] chair” (subclaim 13(vi)). Fifth, Wogenstahl argues that his right to present a mitigation case was compromised by the trial court’s denial of funds for a mitigation specialist and investigator (claim 1) and by trial counsel’s ineffective assistance in preparing and presenting mitigation evidence at the penalty phase (claim 23).

Sixth, Wogenstahl asserts that the trial court violated his rights by giving an “acquittal first” instruction that required the jury to unanimously vote for a life sentence (claim 14). III. A. Because Wogenstahl filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), we review de novo the district court’s conclusions on issues of law and on mixed questions of law and fact and review its factual findings for clear error. Montgomery v. Bobby, 654 F.3d 668, 676 (6th Cir.2011) (en banc).

Under AEDPA, our court will not grant a habeas petition on any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim was: (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”; or (2) “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). “Under the ‘contrary to’ clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ 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.” Montgomery, 654 F.3d at 676 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Under the ‘unreasonable application’ clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court’s application of clearly established federal law to the facts of the prisoner’s case was objectively unreasonable.” Id.

B. The State argues that nearly all issues on appeal have been procedurally defaulted, and the district court concluded that several of the claims that remain at issue were procedurally defaulted.

Thus, we set forth the general standard for determining whether an issue is procedurally defaulted at the outset. “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). “A habeas petitioner procedurally defaults a claim if: (1) the petitioner fails to comply with a state procedural rule; (2) the state courts enforce the rule; (3) the state procedural rule is an adequate and independent state ground for denying review of a federal constitutional claim; and (4) the petitioner cannot show cause and prejudice excusing the default.” Guilmette v. Howes, 624 F.3d 286, 290 (6th Cir.2010) (en banc); see also Maupin v. Smith, 785 F.2d 135, 138 (6th Cir.1986).

The “cause” standard in procedural-default cases requires the petitioner to show that “some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel’s efforts” to raise a claim in the state courts. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 493, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). Such factors may include interference by officials, an attorney error rising to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel, or a showing of a factual or legal basis for a claim that was not reasonably available.

Id. at 493-94, 111 S.Ct. 1454. “[A] procedurally defaulted ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim can serve as cause to excuse the procedural default of another habeas claim only if the habeas petitioner can satisfy the ‘cause and prejudice’ standard with respect to the ineffective assistance claim itself.” Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 450-51, 120 S.Ct. 1587, 146 L.Ed.2d 518 (2000). Wogenstahl relies on his claim of IAAC to serve as “cause and prejudice” to excuse procedural default, while the State argues that Wogenstahl’s IAAC claims are themselves procedurally defaulted.

In this case, Wogenstahl first raised his IAAC claims in his initial Rule 26(

B) motion to reopen, filed in 1996. This motion was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to then-Ohio S.Ct. Prac. R. II(2)(D)(1). The Ohio Court of Appeals noted that Wogenstahl’s IAAC claims should have been raised on direct appeal. On direct appeal of the original conviction to the Ohio Supreme Court, in response to Wogenstahl’s claims of IATC and IAAC, the Ohio Supreme Court generally stated that it was “convinced that [Wogenstahl] received ... competent representation both at trial and on appeal.” Wogenstahl, 662 N.E.2d at 318. Although he originally faced a jurisdictional bar, due to the amendment of Ohio S.Ct. Prac. R. II(2)(D)(1), Wogenstahl was able to file a delayed Rule 26(

B) application for reopening and did so in 1998. The Ohio Court of Appeals dismissed the motion and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed for lack of good cause in filing an untimely delayed application (more than two years after the amendment to the Rule). Wogenstahl, 700 N.E.2d at 1255. Additionally, the courts found that they had previously determined that Wogenstahl’s IAAC claims lacked merit and thus dismissed on grounds of res judicata. Id. The court, then, offered an alternative holding on the merits, but its conclusion rested on procedural grounds.

Since 1996, “Ohio law has provided sufficient guidance on what constitutes a ‘good cause’ for a late filing under Rule 26(B),” and “ ‘the time constraints of Rule 26(B) [have been] firmly established and regularly followed.’ ” Hoffner v. Bradshaw, 622 F.3d 487, 504-05 (6th Cir.2010) (quoting Parker v. Bagley, 543 F.3d 859, 861 (6th Cir.2008)). Thus, Rule 26(

B) is an adequate and independent ground on which to find procedural default. Id. at 505. Nonetheless, “[w]hen a state court declines to review the merits of a petitioner’s claim on the ground that it has done so already, it creates no bar to federal habeas review.” Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 129 S.Ct. 1769, 1781, 173 L.Ed.2d 701 (2009). Thus, we conclude that Wogenstahl’s IAAC claims were not necessarily procedurally defaulted to the extent they were raised before the Ohio Supreme Court upon direct appeal.

We later consider whether any IAAC claims provide adequate “cause and prejudice” for default of Wogenstahl’s other procedurally defaulted claims. See infra Part. V.A.8. IV. Wogenstahl first contends that the prosecution violated his constitutional rights by withholding evidence that, prior to his 1993 trial, one of the key prosecution witnesses, Eric Horn, had been arrested for and adjudicated delinquent for trafficking marijuana. A. We are required to afford AEDPA deference to the state courts’ adjudication of Wogenstahl’s Brady claim.

Wogenstahl argues that the district court erred in requiring him to return to state court to litigate this claim, given that the Horn evidence was not revealed until Wogenstahl had filed a federal habeas proceeding, and in the absence of an exhaustion requirement, we need not afford AEDPA deference. Wogenstahl’s argument is misplaced. AEDPA preserves the Supreme Court’s prior “total exhaustion” requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); see also Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 274, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005).

Some federal district courts have adopted a “stay-and-abeyance” procedure by which the district court will stay a petitioner’s § 2254 proceeding and hold it in abeyance so that the petitioner can return to state court to exhaust his previously unexhausted claims without running afoul of the AEDPA’s one-year limitations period.

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 275-76, 125 S.Ct. 1528. “Because granting a stay effectively excuses a petitioner’s failure to present his claims first to the state courts, stay and abeyance is only appropriate when the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state court.” Id. at 277, 125 S.Ct. 1528. Wogenstahl had good cause for failing to raise the Brady issue prior to 2003, because the new information about Horn was not disclosed until then.

Thus, staying the district court habeas proceedings and holding them in abeyance while Wogenstahl pursued these claims in state court was proper. The timing of the state court’s decision and the fact it was rendered while the habeas petition was stayed have no effect on our standard of review under AEDPA. B. “[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). “To assert a successful Brady claim, a habeas petitioner must show that: (1) evidence favorable to the petitioner, (2) was suppressed by the government, and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice.” Johnson v. Bell, 525 F.3d 466, 475 (6th Cir.2008) (citing Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691, 124 S.Ct. 1256, 157 L.Ed.2d 1166 (2004)). “Brady requires that the prosecution disclose evidence that may impeach the credibility of a witness.” Wilson v. Parker, 515 F.3d 682, 701 (6th Cir.2008) (citing Giglio v.

United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-54, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972)). “Evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the outcome of the case would have been different.” Id. (citing Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433-34, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995)). “A reasonable probability is a ‘probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” Id. at 701-02 (quoting United States v.

Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)). “[T]he Brady standard is not met if the petitioner shows merely a reasonable possibility that the suppressed evidence might have produced a different outcome.... ” Montgomery, 654 F.3d at 678.

Where the prosecution is shown to have suppressed Brady or Giglio matter relevant to its presentation of evidence known to be false, the “materiality” standard is less stringent. “To prove that the prosecutor’s failure to correct false testimony violated due process rights, a petitioner must demonstrate that: (1) the statement was actually false; (2) the statement was material; and (3) the prosecution knew it was false.” Rosencrantz v.

Lafler, 568 F.3d 577, 583-84 (6th Cir.2009). “A conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony must be set aside ‘if the false testimony could ... in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury....’” Id. at 583 (quoting Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154, 92 S.Ct. 763).

Instead of asking, as under Brady, “whether ‘there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceedings would have been different,”’ a court addressing a Giglio false-testimony claim “ask[s] only ‘if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.’ ” Id. at 584 (citations omitted); see Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 272, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959).

The distinction in the two standards matters “because while a traditional Brady materiality analysis obviates a later harmless-error review under Brecht v. Abrahamson, [507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) ] courts may excuse Brady/Giglio violations involving known and materially false statements as harmless error.” Rosencrantz, 568 F.3d at 584 (footnotes omitted). C.

To reiterate the relevant facts, Horn testified at trial that Wogenstahl came to his mother’s apartment at approximately 3 a.m. on November 24, 1991, where Horn was babysitting his younger siblings, and falsely told Horn that his mother, Peggy Garrett, needed to talk to him at Troy Beard’s home three blocks away. According to Horn, Wogenstahl dropped him off on the street approximately one block away before they arrived at Beard’s home but told him he would drive around the block and pick him up after he finished talking to his mother.

When Horn arrived at Beard’s residence, however, Garrett was not there, and Beard told Horn that he had not seen Garrett at all that evening. Further, when Horn went back outside, Wogenstahl did not return to pick him up. Horn walked back to his mother’s apartment. The next day police searched Wogenstahl’s apartment and asked where he had been in the early morning hours of the previous day. Wogenstahl stated that he visited Horn at Garrett’s apartment at approximately 3 a.m. and played a “practical joke” on Horn by dropping him off near Beard’s apartment.

Wogenstahl told police that he then went directly home to bed. Two days later, when interviewed again by investigators, Wogenstahl changed his story; he said that he had driven Horn to the area of Beard’s home because Horn wanted to deliver marijuana to Garrett. Wogenstahl maintained that he went directly home and to bed after this. At trial, Wogenstahl testified in his own defense. Wogenstahl testified as follows: After he parted ways with Garrett and her friend, he followed them back into Harrison, where the two women pulled into Beard’s apartment building.

Garrett had told him that Horn was at her apartment, so at approximately 3 a.m. Wogenstahl decided to go to Garrett’s home to “ask [Horn] if he would sell [Wogenstahl] a couple of joints.” Wogenstahl had bought marijuana from Horn before. This time, Horn told Wogenstahl that he had no marijuana to sell him. Horn then asked Wogenstahl for a ride to Beard’s apartment so Horn could give Garrett the marijuana he did have, which he had promised to her previously. At approximately 3:20 a.m., Wogenstahl agreed to give Horn a ride but declined to take him as far as Beard’s apartment.

Wogenstahl dropped Horn off approximately one block from that apartment and then returned to his own apartment. When Horn was on the stand in the 1993 trial, Horn denied that he had ever seen marijuana around his house and that he had ever sold marijuana. In reality, Harrison police officers had executed a search warrant at Horn’s home in August 1992 and found sixty-three grams of marijuana and $769 in Horn’s wallet. Horn was charged with felony drug-trafficking and was later adjudicated delinquent for trafficking in marijuana.

During a 2003 deposition regarding the prosecution’s awareness of this evidence, Detective Ed Bettinger testified that he called Prosecuting Attorney Joe Deters at his home to tell him about Horn’s adjudication. Bettinger was “sure” that he also discussed Horn’s arrest with two other members of the prosecuting team, Piepmeier and Gibson. Similarly, police officer Steve Mathews testified during a deposition that Horn’s arrest was discussed before trial at the prosecutor’s office with Piepmeier, Gibson, or both.

Subsequently, during a 2005 evidentiary hearing on Wogenstahl’s § 2254 proceeding, Bettinger and Mathews gave testimony nearly identical to their depositions; Horn testified that he had pled guilty to the drug charge even though he was innocent and that his testimony at Wogenstahl’s trial was true; and prosecutors Deters, Piepmeier, and Gibson testified that they could not remember receiving information about Horn’s arrest. The Brady claim first surfaced in 2003 while Wogenstahl’s petition for writ of ha beas corpus was pending.

The district court held the case in abeyance until Wogenstahl exhausted state remedies regarding newly discovered evidence. Wogenstahl then filed a motion for a new trial in state court on those grounds. The state trial court denied Wogenstahl’s 2003 motion for a new trial based on the withheld evidence. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, responding to Wogenstahl’s two assignments of error. First, applying a six-part test from State v.

Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505, 76 N.E.2d 370 (1947), the Court of Appeals determined that there was no Brady error because “the new.evidence does not present a strong probability that it would change the result if the new trial were granted.” Wogenstahl, — N.E.2d at-, 2004 WL 2567655, at *4. The court specifically discussed the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Id., — N.E.2d at ——, 2004 WL 2567655, at *5.

Second, in response to Wogenstahl’s argument that he was entitled to a new trial because the prosecutors suborned perjury from Horn, the court hypothesized that if the information raised in the depositions were true, “there is no likelihood whatsoever that the new evidence of Horn’s delinquency could have affected the jury’s verdict.” Id., — N.E.2d at-, 2004 WL 2567655, at *7. In addressing Wogenstahl’s Brady/Giglio arguments, the district court quoted the state court’s entire analysis. Wogenstahl, 2007 WL 2688423, at *32-36.

The district court concluded that, although the withheld evidence was exculpatory, Wogenstahl was not prejudiced. Id. at *38. The district court found “[tjhere was an enormous amount of evidence introduced at trial upon which a rational trier of fact could base a guilty verdict” and that Horn’s “testimony did little more than provide a time line of the events.” Id. at *38, 39.

After detailing this evidence, the district court stated that “even if [ ] Wogenstahl had the information about [ ] Horn’s adjudication and his counsel had been able to use that evidence to impeach [ ] Horn to the point where every juror found him to be completely incredible, there remained more than sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict.” Id. at *39.

Furthermore, regarding Horn’s argument that the prosecution suborned perjury, the district court found that because Horn’s testimony was not material to guilt or innocence, “Wogenstahl’s conviction was not a result of such misconduct nor did it result in a violation of [ ] Wogenstahl’s due process or fundamentally fair trial rights.” Id. D. We affirm the decision of the district court. The state court decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.

Wogenstahl contends that the state court applied the wrong standard when it relied on the six-part test in Petro instead of Brady’s prejudice standard. We decline to address whether this constitutes error because the state court went on to find that “there is no likelihood whatsoever that the new evidence of Horn’s delinquency could have affected the jury’s verdict.” This conclusion clearly adopted the less stringent Giglio standard with respect to materiality of evidence, whether or not the state court adequately addressed Wogenstahl’s claim under Brady.

Thus, the state court’s conclusion that Wogenstahl was not prejudiced by'the withheld evidence was neither contrary to nor involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Wogenstahl further argues that the state court’s determination of the facts was unreasonable in light of the evidence presented. We disagree and conclude that the effect of the new Horn evidence was minor because it remained undisputed that Wogenstahl went to Garrett’s apartment in the middle of the night, left the apartment with Horn, and dropped Horn off on the street so Horn could visit Beard.

Wogenstahl’s own admissions, consistent with Horn’s testimony, placed Wogenstahl in the area on the night Amber was abducted with knowledge that Horn would be absent and that no one would be watching Amber. We recognize that had the jury been aware that Horn was lying about his history of marijuana trafficking, it might have been more willing to believe Wogenstahl’s account of his visit. Horn’s adjudication for marijuana trafficking lends credence to the idea that Wogenstahl went to the apartment to purchase marijuana.

Furthermore, Horn’s testimony implied that Wogenstahl had a deliberate plan to get Horn out of the apartment to leave Amber alone. Nonetheless, based on Wogenstahl’s own first-account of the events of that night in his statement to police, he went to Garrett’s apartment to play a “practical joke” on Horn. This account is fully consistent with the notion that Wogenstahl lured Horn from the apartment. Thus, we conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury, either in convicting or sentencing Wogenstahl.

We affirm the decision of the district court with respect to Wogenstahl’s Brady/Giglio claim. V. Second, Wogenstahl argues that the prosecution made unconstitutionally improper closing arguments at both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial.

Wogenstahl maintains that, during the guilt-phase argument, the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of state witnesses, denigrated defense counsel, confronted and questioned Wogenstahl himself, stated his personal opinion that Wogenstahl was lying, offered his personal beliefs regarding significant facts, and improperly commented on his failure to call defense witnesses. Also, Wogenstahl contends that at both the guilt and penalty phases, the prosecution improperly inflamed the passions and prejudices of the jury.

Grouped by Wogenstahl into this argument is an IATC claim based on his counsel’s failure to object to a number of alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, as part of this overall grouping, Wogenstahl challenges the trial court’s ruling on defense counsel’s objections to improper prosecutorial arguments during closing arguments in both the guilt and penalty phases. A.

Regarding procedural default of the prosecutorial misconduct claims that do not contain allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, the district court concluded that Wogenstahl did raise the improper argument claim and the claims of inflaming jury passions at the guilt phase in his 1996 appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, see Wogenstahl, 2007 WL 2688428, at * 17, and that the Ohio Supreme Court rejected these claims without analysis or comment, id. at *66.

The Ohio Supreme Court stated: We have repeatedly held that this court is not required to address and discuss, in opinion form, each and every proposition of law raised by the parties in a death penalty appeal. See, e.g., State v. Scudder (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 263, 267, 643 N.E.2d 524, 528. We adhere to that position today. Several issues raised by this appellant have been addressed and rejected under similar circumstances in a number of our prior cases. Moreover, a number of appellant’s arguments have been waived.

Upon a careful review of the record and the governing law, we fail to detect any errors that would undermine our confidence in the outcome of appellant’s trial. We are convinced that appellant received a fair trial, a fair and reliable sentencing determination, and competent representation both at trial and on appeal. We address, in opinion form, only those matters that merit some discussion. Wogenstahl, 662 N.E.2d at 318 (emphases added). The district court properly concluded that these claims were rejected without analysis or comment.

A claim is not procedurally defaulted unless the state court “actually enforced the state procedural sanction.” Fautenberry v. Mitchell, 515 F.3d 614, 633 (6th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the Ohio Supreme Court did not identify which of these issues it was addressing on the merits and which were waived, it is impossible to determine which claims were dismissed on the merits and which were dismissed due to procedural default. We therefore presume that the prosecutorial misconduct claims, having been presented to the Ohio Supreme Court and denied, were adjudicated on the merits.

Harrington v. Richter, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 770, 784-85, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). And even though the state court’s adjudication was by

summary denial, our review is subject to the AEDPA deference requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Id.

That is, habeas relief may be granted only if the state court’s determination is found to be an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. “Under § 2254(d), a habeas court must determine what arguments or theories supported or, as here, could have supported, the state court’s decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision of this Court.” Id. at 786. “In the evaluation of a claim for prosecutorial misconduct, it is not enough that the prosecutor’s comments were improper, but the relevant question is whether the prosecutors’ comments so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Smith v.

Mitchell, 567 F.3d 246, 255 (6th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks and editorial marks omitted). We apply a “two-part test to determine whether the state court reasonably applied the federal standard in holding that prosecutorial misconduct did not render [Wogenstahl’s] trial fundamentally unfair.” Irick v. Bell, 565 F.3d 315, 324 (6th Cir.2009). We first determine whether the prosecution’s conduct was improper. Id.

Second, we determine whether that improper conduct was flagrant by considering four factors: “(1) whether the evidence against the defendant was strong; (2) whether the conduct of the prosecution tended to mislead the jury or prejudice the defendant; (3) whether the conduct or remarks were isolated or extensive; and (4) whether the remarks were made deliberately or accidentally.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 1. Wogenstahl argues that, the prosecution improperly vouched for the credibility of state witnesses Bruce Wheeler, Kathy Roth, and F.B.I.

Agent Doug Deedrick. “Improper vouching occurs when a prosecutor supports the credibility of a witness by indicating a personal belief in the witness’s credibility thereby placing the prestige of the [government] behind that witness.” Johnson v. Bell, 525 F.3d 466, 482 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v.

Francis, 170 F.3d 546, 550 (6th Cir.1999)). “Generally, improper vouching involves either blunt comments or comments that imply that the prosecutor has special knowledge of facts not in front of the jury or of the credibility and truthfulness of witnesses and their testimony.” Francis, 170 F.3d at 550 (internal citations omitted). “It is patently improper for a prosecutor either to comment on the credibility of a witness or to express a personal belief that a particular witness is lying.” Hodge v. Hurley, 426 F.3d 368, 378 (6th Cir.2005) (citing United States v.

Young, 470 U.S. 1, 17-19, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)). First, Wogenstahl cites a general instance of alleged vouching. When commenting on the witnesses who identified Wogenstahl or his car, or both, the prosecution stated: “They didn’t lie and they are not mistaken. These people are honest people.... They are honest people who are just telling you what they know.

You could believe them or you could believe this burglar, this robber, this thief who is in here before you today.” Second, Wogenstahl points to a statement about witness Kathy Roth, who identified Wogenstahl as being near the area where Amber was found on the night she was murdered.

The prosecution asked if Roth “show[ed] ... any hesitation, ... any doubt about that identification.” The prosecution stated that Roth was certain, that she would not “make that kind of statement unless she was absolutely positive that she was right.” Third, Wogenstahl mentions the prosecution’s comments on the testimony of Bruce Wheeler, Wogenstahl’s cellmate. The prosecution argued that the jury should believe Wheeler’s testimony because he “got nothing for his appearance in th[e] courtroom” and because there is no other way Wheeler could have known the details of the crime without speaking to Wogenstahl.

The prosecution stated that the jury should believe Wheeler “[b]ecause he was telling the truth.” Fourth, Wogenstahl cites a comment regarding Agent Deedrick’s expertise. The prosecution stated, “[D]uring the time that [Deedrick] testified I had to admit I have never seen a witness with as much expertise in a particular area that is knowledgeable on his subject matter as Special Agent Deedrick.” Wogenstahl failed to object to any of these comments.

The statements regarding witness veracity verge on improper vouching because with these statements the prosecution “supported] the credibility of a witness by indicating a personal belief in the witness’s credibility.” See Johnson, 525 F.3d at 482. These statements of personal opinion are certainly problematic. Assuming that these statements were improper, “[a]n improper statement of personal belief, however, is not per se reversible error. [We] must find that the improper statement was flagrant enough to ‘warrant reversal.’ ” United States v.

Henry, 545 F.3d 367, 380 (6th Cir.2008) (internal citation omitted). “[A] state’s attorney is free to argue that the jury should arrive at a particular conclusion based upon the record evidence.... ” Caldwell v. Russell, 181 F.3d 731, 737 (6th Cir.1999), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Mackey v. Dutton, 217 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir.2000). The prosecution’s statements were made in the context of an extensive trial record.

The statement about the veracity of those who had identified Wogenstahl or his car and the statements about Roth and Wheeler were supported by evidence that had been presented in court and demonstrated no special knowledge of the prosecution. Given that the evidence against Wogenstahl was strong, the comments were isolated, and the comments were unlikely to mislead the jury or prejudice Wogenstahl, we conclude that these statements were harmless.

The statements regarding Agent Deedrick’s testimony even more precisely fit the description of improper vouching because they imply special knowledge of facts not in front of the jury — that is the prosecution’s experience with other expert witnesses. See Johnson, 525 F.3d at 482. This statement, however, was isolated and, furthermore, supported by the record because Agent Deedrick himself testified to his qualifications and expertise. Thus, this statement, although improper, was unlikely to mislead the jury or prejudice Wogenstahl.

After conducting an independent review of the record and law, we conclude that the state court decision is not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law. The district court concluded that “the prosecutor’s complained-of comments during his closing argument were not so egregious as to render [] Wogenstahl’s trial fundamentally unfair,” Wogenstahl, 2007 WL 2688423, at *69, and we agree. 2.

Wogenstahl argues that during closing argument the prosecution denigrated defense counsel. “The prosecution necessarily has ‘wide latitude’ during closing argument to respond to the defense’s strategies, evidence and arguments.” Bedford v. Collins, 567 F.3d 225, 233 (6th Cir.2009) (quoting Henry, 545 F.3d at 377).

The propriety of the prosecution’s closing argument depends on the circumstances of the case and “what the defense has said or done (or likely will say or do).” Id. “[T]he prosecutor may not simply belittle the defense’s witnesses or deride legitimate defenses .... ” Id. “Of course, a prosecutor should not directly or implicitly impugn the integrity or institutional role of defense counsel.” United States v. Jamieson, 427 F.3d 394, 414 (6th Cir.2005). Wogenstahl cites seven instances in which the prosecution allegedly denigrated defense counsel.

These instances provide examples of the prosecution portraying defense counsel as attempting to mislead the jury and failing to present a complete case. Each of these instances was either a direct response to evidence presented at trial or a response to the defense counsel’s closing arguments. Defense counsel, like the prosecution, is to avoid personal attacks on the prosecutor and “avoid acrimony in relations with opposing counsel during trial.... ” Young, 470 U.S. at 10, 105 S.Ct. 1038 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In spite of this, defense counsel stridently suggested impropriety on the part of the prosecution. Thus, the overall tone of the closing arguments was one of extremely zealous advocacy, accurately described as unpleasant. But, given this context, the cited statements of the prosecution’s closing do not appear to denigrate defense counsel inappropriately.

The district court noted that “none of the comments about which [ ] Wogenstahl complains was an attack on the credibility or integrity of defense counsel,” yet it continued its prosecutorial misconduct analysis and concluded that the factors weighed against Wogenstahl. Wogenstahl, 2007 WL 2688423, at *70. We conclude that all of the instances cited by Wogenstahl were well within the prosecution’s “wide latitude” to respond to the defense’s case, see Bedford, 567 F.3d at 233, and thus find no improper prosecutorial conduct in closing argument. 3.

Wogenstahl challenges the prosecution’s having directly confronted Wogenstahl during the guilt-phase closing statement. In the context of “calling out for justice” on behalf of Amber, the prosecution stated, presumably while looking at Wogenstahl: “I just want to ask you: Why did you do it and why did you have to kill that little girl who had not done anything to you?” Wogenstahl offers no case law to suggest that such a “calling out for justice” was improper. See United States v.

Phinazee, 515 F.3d 511, 520 (6th Cir.2008) (“[Ijssues adverted to on appeal in a perfunctory manner unaccompanied by some effort at developed argument are deemed waived----” (internal quotation marks omitted.)). He merely discredits the district court’s deference to the decision of the Ohio Court of Appeals, which concluded: (1) the Ohio Supreme Court has said that there is nothing inherently wrong with a call for justice, State v.

Evans, (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 231, 586 N.E.2d 1042; and (2) to the extent that the prosecutor may have inappropriately injected himself personally into the scenario drawn for the jurors, the error, if any, was neither prejudicial nor plain. Wogenstahl, 1994 WL 686898, at *13. The district court went on to conclude that this claim is without merit because “of the isolated nature of the comment and the amount of evidence of [] Wogenstahl’s guilt.” Wogenstahl, 2007 WL 2688423, at *71.

Because Wogenstahl fails to offer any argument as to why the prosecution’s rhetorical question is improper, we conclude that the argument is without merit. 4. Wogenstahl claims that the prosecution repeatedly called him a liar. “In general, it is improper for a prosecuting attorney in a criminal case to state his personal opinion concerning the credibility of witnesses or the guilt of the defendant.” Hall v. Vasbinder, 563 F.3d 222, 235 (6th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

However, “a prosecutor may assert that a defendant is lying during her closing argument when emphasizing discrepancies between the evidence and that defendant’s testimony.” Francis, 170 F.3d at 551. “To avoid impropriety ... such comments must reflect reasonable inferences from the evidence adduced at trial.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Wogenstahl cites three specific instances within ten pages of one another in the trial transcript.

In one of the three instances, the prosecution mused about the type of person who would lie in court and then suggested that the kind of person who would lie in court is the kind of person who would do the things that eventually led to Amber’s murder. The next instance mentioned nothing about telling the truth or lying but rather discussed the “kind of guy” Wogenstahl was — “out on parole, lost his job, thrown out by his live-in girlfriend.” The third instance emphasized Wogenstahl’s changing story: “[Wogenstahl] changed his story repeatedly, he has lied to you, he has lied to the police....

Everybody is at fault and the FBI planted hairs and it wasn’t my fault and they are lying if they said that and he blamed everybody but himself.” Wogenstahl does not dispute, however, that the prosecutor linked these instances to the evidence. These isolated comments were found within a larger discussion of Wogenstahl’s credibility. In fact, throughout the ten pages prior to the ten pages with the arguably questionable statements, the prosecution discussed how the evidence presented at trial informs the determination of Wogenstahl’s credibility.

It is doubtful that these statements were improper and clear that they failed to prejudice Wogenstahl, as they were tied to the evidence presented at trial. The district court concluded that there was not prosecutorial misconduct because “the prosecutor was careful to tie his comments to the evidence that had been introduced.” Wogenstahl, 2007 WL 2688423, at *71. We agree. 5.

Wogenstahl argues that the prosecution “vouched for and placed [its] imprimatur upon the credibility of the prosecution’s entire case by speaking of personal, off record knowledge and facts and [its] opinion about those facts.” Both prosecution and defense counsel are to “refrain from interjecting personal beliefs into the presentation of [the] case.” Young, 470 U.S. at 8-9, 105 S.Ct. 1038.

The prosecution’s vouching for the credibility of witnesses and expressing his personal opinion concerning the guilt of the accused pose two dangers: such comments can convey the impression that evidence not presented to the jury, but known to the prosecutor, supports charges against the defendant and can thus jeopardize the defendant’s right to be tried solely on the basis of the evidence presented to the jury; and the prosecutor’s opinion carries with it the imprimatur of the Government and may induce the jury to trust the Government’s judgment rather than its own view of the evidence.

Id. at 18-19,105 S.Ct. 1038. The allegedly objectionable statements resemble statements of personal opinion concerning Wogenstahl’s guilt. Wogenstahl argues that the following comment was improper: ‘You know, as I went through this case I found real foundations for these accusations that [] Wogenstahl committed these offenses.” We conclude that this statement is not improper because it suggests only that the trial evidence, not some special outside knowledge of the prosecutor, supported a guilty verdict. Subsequent to making this statement the prosecution went into detail about that evidence.

Although counsel should have avoided the personal reference, this statement presents none of the concerns associated with the prosecution’s having asserted personal beliefs as to the defendant’s guilt. Wogenstahl next references language from the prosecution’s argument as to why Wogenstahl was at Garrett’s apartment at all: “I know why he went there. I know exactly why he went there.

You will see the results of why he went there when you go back into that jury room.” Wogenstahl also points out language in which the prosecution explained “the type of person who would lie in court.” These statements are more problematic as they are more likely to imply “that the prosecutor, by virtue of his experience, knowledge and intellect, has concluded that the jury must convict.” United States v. Bess, 593 F.2d 749, 755 (6th Cir.1979). Certainly, the repeated prefacing of statements with “I know,” “I believe,” or “I think” is not preferable. See Joseph v. Coyle, 469 F.3d 441, 474 (6th Cir.2006).

Nonetheless, these statements were founded in evidentiary analysis, and, furthermore, they were isolated. The district court concluded that these comments were not improper and there was no prosecutorial misconduct, Wogenstahl, 2007 WL 2688423, at *72. We conclude that these comments do not rise to the level of flagrancy required to constitute prosecutorial misconduct. 6. Wogenstahl contends that the prosecution’s comments regarding Wogenstahl’s failure to call certain witnesses constitute prosecutorial misconduct.

Wogenstahl’s contention is based on the notion that these comments wrongly suggested that he had the burden of proving his innocence while in reality the prosecution had the burden of proving his guilt. “It is improper for the prosecutor to suggest that the defendant has the burden of proof or any obligation to produce evidence to prove his innocence.” Joseph, 469 F.3d at 474 (editorial and internal quotation marks omitted). However, the trial court can diminish concerns of impropriety through jury instructions about burden of proof.

During the prosecution’s closing rebuttal during the guilt phase of the trial, the prosecution stated: The defense talks about all these witnesses who didn’t testify. They have every right, as we do, to subpoena any witness in the world ... why didn’t they subpoena him? It was irrelevant. It’s totally irrelevant. If it was important to Wogenstahl’s case they have the power to subpoena just like the State has. Upon Wogenstahl’s objection that “[w]e do not have to prove anything,” the court spoke to the jury: The same instructions I will give you later and tell you again now.

What counsel says in final argument is not evidence. The evidence that you will decide this case is what you hear from the witness box, and they can make reasonable inferences and you determine what the evidence is and you are to determine if they are making reasonable inferences. In addition, what they say to you in closing argument is not the law. What I say to you and what I instruct you on the law is the law. Following the prosecution’s guilt-phase rebuttal, the trial court gave instructions which included the following statements: “There is no necessity or requirement that any defendant present any evidence.

The duty of proof rests entirely on the State of Ohio.” This instruction immediately following the prosecution’s potentially improper comments as well as the final instructions assuage any concerns of misleading the jury. We conclude that, even if the prosecution’s comments were improper, they were not flagrant. 7. Wogenstahl asserts that the prosecution wrongfully inflamed the passions and prejudices of the jury during closing argument at the guilt phase. Generally, “a prosecutor cannot make statements calculated to incite the passions and prejudices of the jurors.” Broom v.

Mitchell, 441 F.3d 392, 412 (6th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Closing arguments that encourage juror identification with crime victims are improper.” Johnson, 525 F.3d at 484. At the same time, “[n]othing prevents the government from appealing to the jurors’ sense of justice or from connecting the point to the victims of the case.” Bedford, 567 F.3d at 234 (internal citations omitted). Wogenstahl objects to the following: Sometimes I feel like I could hear Amber. Sometimes I feel like I could hear her crying saying stop, please stop, saying help me.

Sometimes I feel like I could honestly hear that voice. I just want to ask you: Why did you do it and why did you have to kill this little girl who had not done anything to you? You know what else I hear her doing? I hear her calling out for justice. We acknowledge that these comments were improper. The pivotal question is whether they were so flagrant as to render the entire trial fundamentally unfair. Even if the comments about Amber were inappropriate and apparently deliberate, the remarks were isolated and trial evidence against Wogenstahl was substantial. See Johnson, 525 F.3d at 485.

We conclude that, though these comments were likely improper, they were harmless. 8. Wogenstahl also attacks comments made by the prosecution about Amber at the penalty phase as inflaming the passions and prejudices of the jury. The district court ruled that this claim was procedurally defaulted based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s application of the contemporaneous-objection rule. Wogenstahl, 2007 WL 2688423, at *102. Wogenstahl argues that he did indeed object to the comments in question by moving for a mistrial and, alternatively, that he had cause to excuse any default on the basis of IATC and IAAC.

During the prosecution’s penalty phase closing argument a number of statements were made regarding Amber and the circumstances of her death. Wogenstahl made no contemporaneous objection. As soon as the prosecution’s arguments concluded, Wogenstahl’s counsel sought a mistrial, arguing that the “inflammatory remarks from the prosecutor about this little girl ... did nothing but inflame the jury, ... and we will ask for a mistrial ... on the basis of his remarks.” The trial court denied the request for a mistrial.

In his direct appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, Wogenstahl set forth the issue of prosecutorial misconduct in his Proposition of Law No. 28(

G) entitled “Inflaming the Passions and Prejudices of the Jury.” In two separate propositions, Nos. 30 and 31, Wogenstahl generally raised the issues of IATC and IAAC claiming that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing “to object during several instances of prosecutorial misconduct during final arguments at both the guilt-innocence and penalty phases of the trial” and that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise many instances of IATC.

The Ohio Supreme Court rejected these prosecutorial misconduct challenges because “[Wogenstahl] never objected to the prosecutor’s remarks at the time they were made.” Wogenstahl, 662 N.E.2d at 322.

The court found that “[Wogenstahl’s] contentions of error based upon the state’s initial closing argument [during the penalty phase] have been waived” because ‘“[[Improper remarks of counsel during argument, unless so flagrantly improper as to prevent a fair trial, should be at once objected to and exception taken; otherwise error cannot be predicated upon the remarks alleged to have been improper.’ ” Id. at 322 & n. 2 (quoting State v. DeNicola, 163 Ohio St. 140, 126 N.E.2d 62, 63 (1955)).

In response to Wogenstahl’s claims of IATC and IAAC, the Ohio Supreme Court generally stated that it was “convinced that [Wogenstahl] received ... competent representation both at trial and on appeal.” Id. at 318. We agree with the district court that the Ohio Supreme Court’s rejection of Wogenstahl’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct at the penalty phase procedurally defaulted this claim for review by our court. During the prosecution’s closing at the sentencing phase of trial, Wogenstahl’s counsel failed to object to the allegedly inflammatory remarks of the prosecution regarding Amber’s death.

The Ohio Supreme Court enforced this rule by concluding that Wogenstahl’s contentions on this claim had been waived. Failure to adhere to the “firmly-established Ohio contemporaneous objection rule” is “an independent and adequate state ground” of decision. Keith v. Mitchell, 455 F.3d 662, 673 (6th Cir.2006). And Wogenstahl has failed to show cause and prejudice excusing the default. See Guilmette, 624 F.3d at 290. Wogenstahl’s only argument rests in the fourth prong of the procedural-default test. He suggests that IATC demonstrates cause for his failure to object at trial.

First, the state courts found that Wogenstahl’s counsel, both at the trial and appellate levels, provided effective assistance. Second, Wogenstahl must show cause for procedural default based on IATC or IAAC, and such a cause showing must be based on deficient performance “so ineffective as to violate the Federal Constitution.” Edwards, 529 U.S. at 451, 120 S.Ct. 1587. Wogenstahl contends that his “trial counsel’s ineffectiveness operates as 'cause.’” Yet, merely conclusory allegations of ineffective assistance like those Wogenstahl makes here, are insufficient to state a constitutional claim. See Workman v.

Bell, 178 F.3d 759, 771 (6th Cir.1998). We conclude that Wogenstahl’s claim for prosecutorial misconduct during the penalty phase at trial regarding comments about the victim is procedurally defaulted based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling that it was waived. 9. Viewing all of these claims cumulatively, we conclude that Wogenstahl’s prosecutorial misconduct claims do not entitle him to habeas relief. A number of the prosecutor’s comments were improper, although others were not. Nonetheless, the evidence against Wogenstahl was indeed overwhelming.

Wogenstahl is unable to maintain a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, even cumulatively, without demonstrating flagrancy, and we conclude that he has failed to do so. B. Wogenstahl argues that trial counsel repeatedly performed ineffectively by failing to raise timely objections to “the prosecutor’s constant stream of improper closing arguments.” To establish ineffective assistance of trial counsel, Wogenstahl must show: (1) his counsel’s performance was deficient — that it was objectively unreasonable under previous professional norms — and (2) it prejudiced the defense. Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). “[A] court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.” Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (internal quotations marks omitted). The test for prejudice is whether 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.

Wogenstahl maintains that under Strickland his prosecutorial misconduct claims demonstrate impropriety and it is “objectively unreasonable for effective counsel to sit silent in the face of these improper arguments.” Yet, Wogenstahl’s arguments remain conclusory and perfunctory, and we conclude that Wogenstahl’s general claims of IATC are insufficient to overcome the presumption of reasonable professional assistance and are insufficient to warrant habeas relief. C. Wogenstahl argues that trial counsel did indeed make some objections on which the trial court failed to rule.

Specifically Wogenstahl alleges that the trial court erred in not ruling on his counsel’s objections to improper prosecutorial arguments including: (1) argument that defense counsel could have called a particular witness; (2) argument at sentencing that defense counsel was there to justify what Wogenstahl had done; (3) argument at sentencing regarding Wogenstahl’s unsworn statement (prosecutor stated that because Wogenstahl could not be asked any “tough questions ... it had no weight”); and (4) argument regarding defense counsel’s previously stricken statement that “If I thought he did it I will tell you to convict him and put him in the chair.” The district court concluded that the supposed failure of the trial court to rule on defense counsel’s objections regarding the prosecution’s remark about the calling of a witness was unimportant because the remark itself did not deprive Wogenstahl of a fair trial.

We agree. The district court also concluded that Wogenstahl procedurally defaulted on his claims of error for failing to rule on the remainder of the arguments. Wogenstahl contends that he raised these claims on direct appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, but his citations to his previously filed briefs before the Ohio courts do not demonstrate that he asserted that the trial court erred in failing to rule on his objections. Thus, we affirm the ruling of the district court regarding Wogenstahl’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct during trial and his related IATC claims. VI.

Wogenstahl’s third argument is also based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

Wogenstahl argues that his due process rights “were violated by the prosecutor’s improper mitigation phase closing argument which upended Ohio’s capital sentencing scheme by arguing that the nature and circumstances of the offense were factors that weighed in favor of death.” In essence, Wogenstahl argues that the prosecution argued the “nature and circumstances of the offense” as an aggravating factor, when Ohio law permits consideration of only those statutory aggravators that have been found by the jury to exist beyond a reasonable doubt at the guilt phase.

Although we recognize the impropriety of many of the prosecutor’s remarks, we conclude that this claim has been proeedurally defaulted. In this instance, Wogenstahl’s trial counsel failed to raise an objection to the prosecutorial misconduct in question. Thus, Wogenstahl violated a procedural rule. On direct appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that because “[Wogenstahl] failed to raise an objection to any of the prosecutor’s remarks concerning what constituted ‘aggravation’ in this case[,] ... [Wogenstahl’s] arguments based on the prosecutor’s remarks have been waived.” Wogenstahl, 662 N.E.2d at 324.

As mentioned above when analyzing the claim that the prosecutor inflamed the passions of the jury, failure to adhere to the “firmly-established Ohio contemporaneous objection rule” is “an independent and adequate state ground” of decision. Keith, 455 F.3d at 673. Unlike its treatment of the claim regarding appealing to the passions of the jury, the Ohio Supreme Court, after it had concluded that Wogenstahl had proeedurally defaulted, proceeded with its “discretionary review of [Wogenstahl’s] contentions ... under ... plain error analysis.... ” Wogenstahl, 662 N.E.2d at 324.

Although the court did evaluate the claim under plain error, “the Ohio Supreme Court’s plain error review does not constitute a waiver of the state’s procedural default rules and resurrect the issue....” Keith, 455 F.3d at 673. Thus, the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision on direct appeal enforced procedural default on an independent and adequate state ground. Absent cause and prejudice, we may not reach the merits of this claim. Wogenstahl argues that IATC serves as cause to excuse the default of failing to contemporaneously object at trial.

To establish ineffective assistance of trial counsel, Wogenstahl must show deficient performance and prejudice. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “[A] court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.” Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

The test for prejudice is whether 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. “[Establishing Strickland prejudice ... establishes prejudice for purposes of cause and prejudice” in the procedural default context. Hall, 563 F.3d at 237. Although the Ohio Supreme Court did not grant Wogenstahl relief as to this claim, it issued criticism of the prosecution’s repeated and detailed refer

[…]