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?

Is the admission at trial, over objection, of Petitioner's statement error that lies beyond any possible fairminded disagreement?