Did the Third Circuit violate the rule of Hill v. Lockhart and wrongly deny a certificate of appealability on Petitioner's claim that counsel induced Petitioner to waive the guilt phase of two trials by misstating the terms of the prosecution's plea offer?

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner John Eichinger faced a capital trial involving three homicides as well as a severed non-capital trial involving a fourth homicide. He steadfastly insisted on going to trial in both cases. Nevertheless, after jury selection was completed in the non-capital trial and already underway in the capital trial, defense counsel persuaded Petitioner to waive the guilt phase of both trials and to stipulate to the prosecution’s evidence, based on counsel’s understanding that the prosecution would refrain from contesting the defense’s use of remorse as a mitigating circumstance. In fact, the prosecution’s offer stated only that the prosecution would refrain from objecting to the admissibility of evidence that Petitioner was not contesting the charges. But that evidence was admissible with or without the prosecution’s agreement, and the prosecution vigorously contested the issue of remorse during the ensuing penalty phase trial at which Petitioner was sentenced to death. The question presented is as follows: In upholding counsel’s overall remorse-based strategy as reasonable, did the Third Circuit violate the rule of Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985), and wrongly deny a certificate of appealability on Petitioner’s claim that counsel induced Petitioner to waive the guilt phase of two trials by misstating the terms of the prosecution’s plea offer? i