Did the Third Circuit err in deferring to the district court's opinion that this issue was procedurally defaulted and finding that Mr. Grimsley was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to visit after receiving information which led to his conviction in the second trial?

QUESTION PRESENTED ; : Mr. Grimsley alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to have a face to face visit prior to his second trial, after receiving crucial information from the District Attorney's office, Also Mr. Grimsley alleges Prosecution Mis‘ conduct were the prosecutor failed to inform the jury, Judge and the accused about an arrest and violation of probation of their star witness prior to his trial testimony. A Sequestration order being violated and Mr. Grimsley also challenges the true nature of sufficiency of evidence. And whether Mr. Grimsley claim of ineffectiveness have legal merit. Mr. Grimsley was convicted, in large part, upon a recording the prosecutor played for the jury during trial implying that Mr. Grimsley had some+ thing to do with a witness not appearing at trial, misleading the jury by not informing them about the true nature of the arrest of a testify star witness, family members of the decease who were never apart or involved with the case being allowed to become witnesses for. the state. The case thus presents the , following question: Did the Third Circuit err in deferring to the district court's opinion that this issue was procedurally defaulted and finding that Mr. Grimsley was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to visit after receiving information which led to his conviction ° in the second trial? Did the Third Circuit err in deferring to the district court's opinion that the petitioner's prosecution misconduct claim is procedurally defaulted? Did the Third Circuit err in deferring to the district court's opinion that Mr. Grimsley suffered no prejudice by family members of the decease becoming witnesses for the state at both trials after violating the judges sequester order? . i | Did the Third Circuit err in deferring to the district court's opinion that the sufficiency of evidence should be dismissed without any relief when the evince was based on the flagrant misreading of the trial evidence? . , ii