Can a petitioner change a state evidentiary rule exclusion of evidence into a constitutional error by arguing that he was deprived of the right to present a third party culpability defense?

A petitioner cannot transform the exclusion of evidence under a state evidentiary rule into a constitutional error simply by arguing that he was deprived of the right to present a third-party culpability defense. Perkins, 937 F.2d at 1401. Although the right to present a defense is a fundamental right, in exercising that right, the accused must "comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to ensure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence." Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 (1973).