Did excluding this evidence violate Sanchez's clearly established right under Crane?

QUESTION PRESENTED The constitution guarantees criminal defendants “a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986). At Joel Sanchez’s murder trial, he sought as part of his self-defense case to present toxicological evidence that the decedent was under the influence of alcohol and methamphetamine, to corroborate his statements that the man had approached him in a threatening way that made him fear for his life. But the trial court excluded the evidence as irrelevant. This petition presents two questions: 1. Did excluding this evidence violate Sanchez’s clearly established right under Crane? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit exaggerate the degree of deference required under 18 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) by holding (in the alternative) that the exclusion here could not amount to an unreasonable application of the Court’s existing precedents? ii CONTENTS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARL 0... crete dL RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY A. The shooting .cec