Task: songer_direct1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision, coded as "liberal" or "conservative". Consider liberal to be  for the defendant. Consider the directionality to be "mixed" if the directionality of the decision was intermediate to the extremes defined above or if the decision was mixed (e.g., the conviction of defendant in a criminal trial was affirmed on one count but reversed on a second count or if the conviction was afirmed but the sentence was reduced). Consider "not ascertained" if the directionality could not be determined or if the outcome could not be classified according to any conventional outcome standards.

PER CURIAM.
On September 26,1960, we affirmed the judgment of Mende’s conviction. Mende v. United States, 9 Cir., 282 F.2d 881.
With prison facing him, Mende has obtained new counsel who has made below a collateral attack on the judgment, claiming the indictment was so fatally defective that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to try him. The trial court rejected it.
The government makes a number of suggestions as to why Mende had no standing below or here to now be heard. But in our opinions its objections do not go to the naked right of a court to hear the collateral attack. Therefore, we consider the attack on its merits.
Under critical examination, the indictment could be improved. But the whole point defendant-appellant makes, could have been taken care of by proffering a precautionary instruction. Such was not done. We hold the indictment was not so fatally defective as to deprive the court of jurisdiction.
The order appealed from is affirmed.

Question: What is the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision?
A. conservative
B. liberal
C. mixed
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A