to or an unreasonable application of federal law. Green also alleges racial discrimination in the selection of the grand jury foreperson. He again offers statistical data on population and the practical nonexistence of black grand jury forepersons in Pitt County. Under North Carolina law, discrimination in selecting a grand jury foreperson rises to the level of a state constitutional violation. State v. Cofield, 320 N.C. 297, 357 S.E.2d 622 (1987). However, the North Carolina Supreme Court rejected Green’s discrimination claim because a defendant who pleads guilty waives his right to challenge the plea on constitutional grounds. Green, 406 S.E.2d at 853. This ruling is consistent with federal jurisprudence. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) (<HOLDING>); Hall v. McKenzie, 575 F.2d 481 (4th
holding the trial court erred in ordering the transcription of grand jury proceedings so that it could intervene in the operations of the grand jury holding that the selection of the jury constitutes part of a public trial holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea holding that racial discrimination in selection of grand jurors compelled dismissal of indictment holding that a defendants guilty plea   forecloses independent inquiry into the claim of discrimination in the selection of the grand jury