Klein v. Martin · ¶44

The panel majority's reasons for concluding otherwise were not consistent with the deference that AEDPA requires. First, the majority argued that the disclosure of the report would have bolstered the defense's primary theory of the case: that the bottle was a device used to smoke marijuana, not a silencer. But a fairminded jurist could find that theory farfetched. Among other things, the mouth of the bottle was covered in tape that looked like it had nestled the muzzle of a semiautomatic frearm. The bottle did not smell like burnt marijuana and bore no trace of controlled substances. The outward-punched puncture at the bottom of the bottle also looked like a bullet hole, and the defense never explained why anyone wanting to construct a bong would have poked a hole in the bottom of the bottle.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.