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 appellants, Huey Meaux and Charlie Booth, were charged with conspiracy to transport a fifteen and one-half year old female in interstate commerce for the purposes of prostitution in violation of the Mann Act, Title 18 U.S.C. § 371, Title 18 U.S.C. § 2421. The case was tried before a jury and a verdict of guilty was returned. In their briefs and oral argument before this Court the appellants raise two contentions: (1) the argument of the prosecutor was highly inflammatory and improper, and (2) appellants were denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. After an examination of the record and the pertinent authorities we have concluded that there is no merit in these contentions. Root v. Cunningham, 344 F.2d 1 (4 Cir. 1965); Thompson v. United States, 272 F.2d 919 (5 Cir. 1960); Thomas v. Cassidy, 249 F.2d 91 (4 Cir. 1957); United States ex rel. Darcy v. Handy, 203 F.2d 407 (3 Cir. 1953); United States ex rel. Hamby v. Ragen, 178 F.2d 379 (7 Cir. 1949); United States ex rel. Weber v. Ragen, 176 F.2d 579 (7 Cir. 1949).
Supplemental briefs filed after oral argument call our attention to parts of the record which reflect statements by counsel and certain evidentiary facts revealed during the trial. We find nothing in these supplemental briefs which causes us to change our conclusion that the judgment should be affirmed.
The judgment is affirmed.

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: A