for writ of certiorari on direct appeal. Davis argues, that, although he did not cite the Fourth Amendment in his discussion of this issue or cite any Supreme Court precedent, his use of the phrase "the fruit of the poisonous tree” constitutes "widely recognized language from Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).” (Doc. No. 95 at 20.) Given its findings herein, the court need not and declines to address Davis' argument. 38 . The court notes that, even if the Supreme Court of Alabama erroneously decided on rehearing that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals already had adjudicated a Fourth Amendment claim, that fact would have no consequence as to the applicability of Stone. See Christian v. McKaskle, 731 F.2d 1196, 1199 (5th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). 39 . The court notes, that if the court was
holding that the petitioner who was denied further appellate review by the supreme judicial court had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his fourth amendment claim in the state trial court and appeals court and thus stone precluded federal habeas relief holding that review under  2254d1 is limited to the record before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits rejecting the petitioners claim that the federal habeas court could consider evidence introduced in an evidentiary hearing holding that aedpa only applies where the state court adjudicated the constitutional issue on the merits holding that stone applies even though state habeas court erroneously held that petitioners fourth amendment claim had been adjudicated on direct review holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court