MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ELAINE E. BUCKLO, District Judge.
Hosea Haynes ("Haynes") has petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus to overturn his state conviction for first degree murder. I deny Haynes's petition for the reasons stated below and also decline to issue a certificate of appealability.
On February 9, 1990, a Northlake, Illinois police officer approached Haynes at a currency exchange to question him about the murder of Michael Kelliher ("Kelliher") one month earlier. When the officer pulled Haynes out of line, Haynes said, "I didn't mean to hurt that guy, but he was going to hurt me." The police arrested Haynes and provided him with Miranda warnings on the way to the station. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). All questioning ended when Haynes asserted the right to remain silent and asked to speak with an attorney. The Northlake police released Haynes without bringing charges.
The Kelliher murder remained a cold case until 1998 when Illinois police performed DNA analysis on blood found inside a pocketknife recovered from the Haynes family apartment shortly after the murder. After establishing a DNA match between Kelliher's blood and the blood inside the pocketknife, the Northlake police obtained an arrest warrant for Haynes.
Haynes initiated communication with the Northlake police officers who arrested him in Minnesota on November 5, 1998. After the police interrupted Haynes to administer fresh Miranda warnings, he waived his rights and continued talking. Haynes stated that he met Kelliher at a bar on the night of the murder and later went with him to a convenience store. However, Haynes did not remember getting into a fight with Kelliher or hurting him.
In August 2000, Haynes filed a pre-trial motion to suppress his 1998 statements on the ground that Northlake police knew or should have known that Haynes invoked the right to remain silent and requested an attorney in 1990 and could not be re-interrogated about the same crime. The trial court denied Haynes's motion. A jury subsequently found Haynes guilty of first degree murder. Haynes is currently serving a sixty year prison sentence at the Illinois River Correctional Center in Canton, Illinois.
The only issue raised in Haynes's direct appeal was whether the trial court should have suppressed his 1998 statements to Northlake police. The Illinois Appellate Court rejected this argument. See Rule 23 Order ("Or."), People v. Haynes, No. 1-00-4151 (Ill.App.Ct. Sept. 27, 2002).
In his pro se petition for leave to appeal ("PLA"), Haynes raised four new arguments: (1) the state knowingly used perjured testimony about how Northlake police obtained the pocketknife containing Kelliher's blood; (2) Haynes's trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to call witnesses who would have refuted the state's theory that investigators recovered the pocketknife while searching the Haynes family apartment; (3) Haynes's appellate attorney provided ineffective assistance by refusing to file a supplemental brief regarding how Northlake police actually came into possession of the pocketknife; and (4) the trial court had an affirmative duty to advise Haynes of his right to be sentenced under the procedures in effect at the time of the underlying crime. The Illinois Supreme Court denied Haynes's pro se petition for discretionary review on April 2, 2003.
The Circuit Court of Cook County appointed counsel for Haynes after he filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief based on the state's alleged use of perjured testimony. This collateral review proceeding culminated in a counseled PLA arguing that Haynes's post-conviction counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Illinois Supreme Court denied Haynes's second PLA on September 26, 2012. Haynes now turns to this Court for relief.
In his pro se habeas petition, Haynes seeks relief on four grounds: (1) his 1998 statements to Northlake police were obtained and used in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent; (2) his 1998 statements to Northlake police were obtained and used in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel during custodial interrogations; (3) the state violated his due process rights by knowingly using perjured testimony that the Northlake police recovered the pocketknife during a search of the Haynes family apartment when, in fact, Haynes's stepbrother, Sebron Floyd ("Floyd"), turned it in to the police; and (4) Haynes's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce an affidavit from Floyd stating that he made false statements about the pocketknife after prosecutors threatened to bring charges against him for withholding evidence in a murder investigation.
The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2254, governs my review of Haynes's habeas petition. Under AEDPA, when a state court has already adjudicated the petitioner's claim(s) on the merits, a federal court may not grant habeas relief unless the state court's decision was (1) "contrary to" or "an unreasonable application of" Supreme Court precedent, or (2) "based on an unreasonable ...