Can a fairminded jurist exclude expert evidence indicating that someone else committed a murder based solely on the jurist's lay disagreement with the expert's conclusions?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Mark Bailey was convicted of a cold-case murder and sentenced to life in prison after a trial that suffered from multiple constitutional errors. At trial, the court inexplicably excluded evidence that someone else had committed the murder. This evidence including the FBI’s expert conclusion that the same killer had murdered another woman a decade before, when Mr. Bailey was only 10 years old. Additionally, the State suppressed fingerprint analysis that exonerated Mr. Bailey of the earlier murder—and, by extension, the later murder. The Sixth Circuit determined that the State suppressed favorable material, prejudicing Mr. Bailey. Nonetheless, the Sixth Circuit overturned the grant of habeas corpus, determining that this constitutional violation was not unreasonable. Accordingly, this case presents two questions: 1.) Can a fairminded jurist exclude expert evidence indicating that someone else committed a murder based solely on the jurist’s lay disagreement with the expert’s conclusions? 2.) Can a fairminded jurist conclude that the State’s suppression of the exonerating fingerprint analysis failed to violate Brady? i