hearsay claims in the context of the Scope of Review was sufficient to put the state supreme court on notice that Petitioner was raising a federal claim when he challenged the admissibility of his prior felony convictions on grounds other than hearsay. Second, Petitioner directs the Court to the first sentence in his “Argument” section of his Opening Brief: The trial court’s decision to spurn the defendant’s offer to stipulate to the fact that the State’s Answering Brief on direct appeal for the Court’s conclusion that Petitioner did not raise his evidentia-ry claim as a constitutional claim. The State’s Answering Brief contains no federal constitutional analysis and analyzes the issue solely as a matter of state evidentia-ry law. See Brown v. Cuyler, 669 F.2d 155, 159 (3d Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court concludes that
holding that argument raised at oral argument that was not included in brief is waived holding that states understanding of petitioners argument as reflected in states answering brief may be probative on question of whether petitioner exhausted state remedies holding an argument made in plaintiffs reply brief but not in their opening brief waived holding that the petitioners failure to address an issue in the argument portion of his opening brief waived the issue holding that an appellee who did not address an argument in the answering brief had waived that issue