Given a document, an entity and its sentiment towards the entity, verify if it is the correct sentiment towards the entity. Answer should be yes or no. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Davis is Neutral . Davis challenged his conviction and sentence on the grounds that his confession was illegally obtained and that his trial in San Clara County  Calif.  was tainted by pretrial publicity.
 Marc Klaas  Polly's father  expressed frustration Monday that Davis' appeals were taking too long. He noted that Polly would be 28 now had she lived.
Davis' appeals were taking too long. He noted that Polly would be 28 now had she lived.
 "I have no doubt that this guy is going to outlive me " said Klaas  60.
 Davis has a constitutional challenge pending before the state high court. Once that is resolved  he can challenge his conviction and sentence in federal court.
 Assistant California Attorney General Ronald Matthias  who successfully opposed DavisDavis' appeal  said federal appeals could take 10 to 15 years.
 In writing for the court  Justice Joyce L. Kennard recounted DavisDavis' reaction when a jury found him guilty of Polly's murder.
 Davis "turned toward the television cameras in the courtroom and made an obscene gesture with both hands by extending his middle fingers " Kennard wrote. "He then winked his eye and blew a kiss."
 Davis kidnapped Polly from her bedroom at her home in Petaluma  Calif.  where she was having a slumber party with two other girls. Her mother and a younger half-sister were sleeping down the hall.
 Davis had a long and violent criminal record  and his history helped fuel voter support for a 1994 three-strikes initiative in California that required sentences of 25 years to life in prison for a third felony after two violent felonies.
[EX A]: yes

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Schaffer Wice is Neutral . The media-savvy special prosecutors have colluded with the Fourth Estate to try — and convict — Paxton in the court of public opinion long before the case even comes to trial.  Wice  in particular is an aspiring media celebrity  serving as a TV “legal analyst” on Houston’s Channel 2 (KPRC) since 2003. Think of a male version of Nancy Grace or Greta Van Susteren — a Dan Abrams wannabe. One profile described the bombastic  Wice  as a “media magnet” who “never shies away from the spotlight.” The KPRC website brags that
Beginning the very day  Schaffer  and Wice were appointed by Becker  the prosecutors were in contact with the media  shamelessly promoting themselves by mass distributing press statements and publicity photos.  Schaffer  and  Wice  obviously intended to milk the case for all the news coverage they could get  for two self-serving reasons: to poison the well of public opinion against Paxton  and to generate free advertising to attract future clients. Neither motive is ethical for a special prosecutor. Yet   Wice  has conceded that pretrial media coverage “impacts the way potential jurors view our client’s case long before they are ushered into the courtroom for voir dire. Being able to effectively represent your client on the courthouse steps can be every bit as important as representing them inside the courtroom.”
Moreover   Wice  once cynically acknowledged the economic benefits of making media appearances  informing fellow lawyers that “appearing on TV is client development — free advertising — that might well yield future business. And you never can tell what that one local  or  with a bit of good fortune  national TV appearance  can do for you or your practice.” Exploiting the media  in other words  is the latest form of ambulance chasing. “Celebrity” attorneys  like the Kardashians  are famous for being famous.
In that vein  Schaffer and Wice continued a steady stream of self-aggrandizing communications with the press corps during the “investigation” and grand jury phases  despite the strict secrecy associated with the grand jury process. The special prosecutors had numerous communications (by email and telephone) with the New York Times’ reporter early in the case  following which the NYT reported Paxton’s indictment on August 1  2015  before the indictment was even unsealed. Was this national media scoop a coincidence? The special prosecutors were the obvious source of the highly-unprofessional leak  but the press corps gratefully reciprocated by uncritically reporting  Wice ’s spin as “news.”
In addition to regularly sending eager reporters status updates and copies of pleadings and orders  on at least two occasions  Wice  circulated to the media Paxton’s annual Personal Financial Statement  presumably to encourage reporters to scrutinize the donors to Paxton’s legal defense fund — a wholly improper purpose. In an even more egregious breach of propriety   Wice  emailed a copy of Paxton’s booking “mugshot” to his KPRC colleague  reporter Phil Archer  shortly after Paxton was released on bail. The only word to describe this type of conduct is “sleazy.”
Intemperately denouncing Paxton’s legal arguments as “frivolous” and “clearly baseless ” the special prosecutors’ tone toward Paxton dripped with contempt as they delivered sound bites to groveling reporters on deadline. When asked by a reporter about a new attorney joining the Paxton defense team to deal with the federal civil case (which was ultimately dismissed with prejudice)   Schaffer  sarcastically responded “Never heard of him. Looks like we set off the Lawyer Relief Act…” When a prominent Paxton supporter wrote an op-ed in the Midland Reporter-Telegram  criticizing the indictment  the thin-skinned prosecutors immediately issued a florid press statement — presumably on the taxpayers’ nickel — condemning the piece as a “rant” containing “lies bathed in the cologne of half-truths  fabrications and disinformation.”
Mimicking the prosecutors’ flippant and unprofessional tone  some reporters began running stories with shockingly-unbalanced headlines  such as “Another Day  Another Idiotic Ken Paxton Motion ” which  Schaffer  and Wice gleefully circulated to their media contacts  with the message “I love it.” If media outlets did not parrot the prosecutors’ swaggering narrative  they were cut off from “insider access.”
This incestuous arrangement likely explains why the Dallas Morning News  which was closely following the Paxton case  never reported the bombshell mentioned in Part 2 — that  Schaffer  was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal RICO case against the leader of the Bandidos motorcycle gang — a revelation that would have greatly tarnished the special prosecutors’ undeserved Boy Scout image — which McGaughy had gone to extraordinary lengths to burnish.
This apparently referred to Paxton’s retention of a defense team that included Dan Cogdell and Philip Hilder  with respect to whom  Schaffer  and Wice issued polite public statements.
The hundreds of email exchanges between the prosecutors and reporters (McGaughy in particular) are clearly collusive. With the avid cooperation of the press corps  for two and a half years  Schaffer  and Wice have been busy smearing Paxton through leaks and planted stories  all while risibly claiming to be “seeking justice on behalf of the people of Texas.”
To re-cap this series: The baseless  politicized prosecution of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been a travesty on many levels. Following the recusal of Collin County District Attorney Greg Willis  the matter should not have been referred to mercenary “special prosecutors” for investigation;  Schaffer  (the unindicted co-conspirator in a RICO case) and Wice (an incorrigible diva) were not suitable for the assignment in any event; the open-ended compensation arrangement agreed to by Judge Scott Becker was both unlawful and foolhardy; the grand jury indictment improperly obtained by the unscrupulous prosecutors amounts to fabricated felonies — made-up crimes never previously prosecuted in a Texas court; the overtly-biased George Gallagher presided over the case as a farcical kangaroo court; changing the venue of the case to Harris County was an absurd and outrageous denial of due process to Paxton; et cetera  ad infinitum.
[EX A]: no

[EX Q]: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Brendan Dassey is Neutral . Making a Murderer subject  Brendan Dassey  will remain behind bars after a federal appeals court in Chicago narrowly overturned a 2016 ruling that would have allowed  Dassey  to go free.
Related 'Making a Murderer' One Year Later: Everything You Need to Know Inside what's happened with Steven Avery   Brendan Dassey  and the case that's fascinated America since Nexflix debuted its true-crime hit
In August 2016  a judge ruled that  the then-16-year-old Dassey  was coerced into confessing his role in the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach;  Dassey  and his uncle Steven Avery were both sentenced to life in prison after being convicted of Halbach's murder. In June 2017  the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed that August 2016 ruling by a 2-to-1 count  but the state of Wisconsin requested that seven members of that court hear the appeal.
On Friday  the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled  by a 4-to-3 margin  that  Dassey 's confession was not coerced. "The state courts' finding that  Dassey 's confession was voluntary was not beyond fair debate  but we conclude it was reasonable " the court's decision stated.
However  the appeals court judges were not unanimous in the decision  with Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner saying of  Dassey  in her dissent  "His confession was not voluntary and his conviction should not stand  and yet an impaired teenager has been sentenced to life in prison. I view this as a profound miscarriage of justice " the Associated Press reports.
Avery's former lawyer Jerome Buting tweeted of the Dassey decision  "The Illusion of Justice continues  with the horrific decision of 4 judges on 7th Cir. to uphold Brendan Dassey's conviction. Dissenting Judge Wood proclaims: " Dassey  will spend the rest of  his  life in prison because of the injustice this court has decided to leave unredressed. Two strong dissents in 4-3 Dassey decision strengthen chance for SCOTUS review. Judge Wood details majority opinion flaws which 'essentially read habeas corpus relief out of the books.' SCOTUS in 2011: habeas still stands as 'guard against extreme malfunctions' in state justice."
[EX A]:
yes