Task: songer_geniss

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to identify the issue in the case, that is, the social and/or political context of the litigation in which more purely legal issues are argued. Put somewhat differently, this field identifies the nature of the conflict between the litigants. The focus here is on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. Consider the following categories: "criminal" (including appeals of conviction, petitions for post conviction relief, habeas corpus petitions, and other prisoner petitions which challenge the validity of the conviction or the sentence), "civil rights" (excluding First Amendment or due process; also excluding claims of denial of rights in criminal proceeding or claims by prisoners that challenge their conviction or their sentence (e.g., habeas corpus petitions are coded under the criminal category); does include civil suits instituted by both prisoners and callable non-prisoners alleging denial of rights by criminal justice officials), "First Amendment", "due process" (claims in civil cases by persons other than prisoners, does not include due process challenges to government economic regulation), "privacy", "labor relations", "economic activity and regulation", and "miscellaneous".

PER CURIAM.
The only error alleged and requiring attention is that the judge communicated with the jury after their retirement and not in open court in the presence of both counsel. The facts are that the jury sent word to the judge that they wished to ask a question; he returned instructions to put it in writing; thereupon in writing they asked whether they could have further information on a certain point; in writing he replied that they could not, for the case was closed. Practically at once, and while the jury was still out, the judge told appellant’s counsel what had been done. Counsel made no request and intimated no desire that the jury be recalled and the ease be reopened; even if the proceeding had been in open court and such a request had been made, its granting would have been discretionary.
If formal error there was, it is clear that there was no prejudice. See Sandusky Co. v. Hamilton (C. C. A. 6) 287 F. 609. It is not necessary to consider the precise effect of section 269, Judicial Code (section 391, tit. 28, USCA), in cases where it is not clear whether or not there might be prejudice.' Robilio v. United States (C. C. A.) 291 F. 975, 980, 981. In this ease, there surely was none; and this section forbids reversal.
The verdict and sentence are affirmed.

Question: What is the general issue in the case?
A. criminal
B. civil rights
C. First Amendment
D. due process
E. privacy
F. labor relations
G. economic activity and regulation
H. miscellaneous
Answer:

Answer: A