Ethan Johnson Spruill v. Jeorld Braggs, Jr., Warden

Is the admission at trial, over objection, of Petitioner’s statement error that lies beyond any possible fairminded disagreement when: (1) the Petitioner was in custody; (2) the Petitioner requested counsel; (3) the Petitioner requested counsel repeatedly; (4) in spite of Petitioner’s repeated requests for counsel, no counsel was provided; (5) the Petitioner was never, at any point, given Miranda warnings; (6) the Petitioner was interrogated by law enforcement without the benefit of Miranda warnings; (7) the Petitioner was interrogated by law enforcement without the benefit of counsel, when the state court ruling that is contrary to, or involving an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States?