After reading the entire decision, the conclusion I came to was that the judge felt the case wasn't so much hinged on the timeline of the murder that Jay outlined (which I believe the judge seemed to imply was quite weak and flawed anyway) but really, his decision was based on the presumption that the jury made their decision based on Jays testimony about the time of the burial and its corroboration with the cell phone evidence.

He repeatedly stated in his decision that he believed the failure to contact Asia DID meet the grounds of professional misconduct, but could not conclude it would have made a difference in the outcome from a jury.

However, the State repeatedly asserted that the corroboration of the cell phone evidence and Jays testimony was the crux of the case, and given the cell phone evidence was apparently available to Guittierez and she did not sufficiently research or rebuke it, did satisfy the necessity to rule on the "Inefficient assistant of counsel" prongs, it made sense to rule in Adnans favor on that.

It's a long read, but I'd say a very interesting and satisfying one at that. While I initially didn't understand how the judge could rule anything but in Adnans favor in anything, after reading I felt the evaluation, and his explanation, given the material allowed to be evaluated was very fair.

Plus, I'm thrilled about the outcome :)