Task: songer_prejud

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Was there prejudicial conduct by prosecution? (including prosecutor refusing to produce evidence which would aid defendant)" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless". 

PER CURIAM.
The appellant did not choose to avail himself of the method laid down by equity rule 75. He never filed a praecipe at all, which should state those parts of the “record to be incorporated,” and which should be accompanied by proof of service upon the appellee. This is quite different from “the evidence to be included in the record,” a statement, of which must be filed at or before the filing of the praseipe, of which the appellee should be notified. Instead of this he attempted to get an agreement with the appellee, and upon failing to do so filed the statement of evidence, with an indorsement that it was his “praecipe” of the evidence. This was not a praecipe at all; moreover, it was never served on the appellee. Nothing was accomplished by it.
The parties thereafter kept on with their negotiations with increasing acerbity until they broke off communications in February, and the appellee procured an ex parte order dismissing the appeal, of which the appellant got notice on February 28th. Even then he did nothing until the appellee moved to secure a repetition of the dismissal, this time on notice. Then the appellant moved for leave to lodge and file the statement and a praecipe.
There will, of course, often be occasions when an appellant, who has failed to proceed under the rules, can be excused. Among these will be the fact that the appellee has led him to expect that no advantage will be taken of his defaults. We cannot see that this is the ease here. On the contrary, it is not shown that the appellee did not in good faith try to co-operate in settling the statement; any inference to be drawn is rather that the appellant did not wish to expedite the appeal. This is especially apparent from the delay of over two months after notice of the ex parte order of dismissal. Had the appellant sought relief seasonably, the cause would have been argued at this term; as it is, it would have to go over to the autumn, and the settlement which the bill challenges must be held up meanwhile. The case was one for dispatch, and we can see no excuse for the appellant’s delays.
Motion to vacate denied.

Question: Was there prejudicial conduct by prosecution?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: E