Task: songer_othcrim

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule for the defendant on grounds other than procedural grounds? For example, right to speedy trial, double jeopardy, confrontation, retroactivity, self defense." This includes the question of whether the defendant waived the right to raise some claim. 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". 

MARSHALL, Circuit Judge.
Charles Catalano, presently serving a twenty-five year sentence for armed bank robbery at Alcatraz, appeals from the denial, without a hearing, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate the judgment of conviction there rendered.
Reading Catalano’s papers with the liberality to be accorded pleadings of an incarcerated litigant not represented by counsel see Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U.S. 342, 350, 61 S.Ct. 1015, 85 L.Ed. 1392 (1941), we conclude that petitioner’s detailed allegations, replete with dates and with the names both of alleged participants and of witnesses, sufficiently pose the contention that petitioner was rendered incompetent throughout the trial by the daily administration of medicines at the place where he was then confined.
Petitioner’s competency during the trial may be challenged by motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961, 76 S.Ct. 440, 100 L.Ed. 835 (1956). *No claim of such incompetency was litigated at the trial or presented by prior motion under § 2255. Nothing in the present motion or in the files and records of the case conclusively controverts his assertions. The affidavit in opposition is insufficient to show that Catalano’s assertions are frivolous. Consequently, improbable or unbelievable as these assertions may be, see Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 287, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830 (1941), there must be a hearing at which Catalano is present and at which he may both call and examine witnesses, United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232 (1952); United States v. Paglia, 190 F.2d 445 (2 Cir. 1951); Green v. United States, 158 F.Supp. 804 (D.Mass. 1958), aff’d 256 F.2d 483 (1st Cir.), cert. denied 358 U.S. 854, 79 S.Ct. 83, 3 L.Ed.2d 87.
We recognize that the various collateral procedures designated to remedy fundamental injustice have been much abused; indeed it was to alleviate such abuse that § 2255 was enacted, see United States v. Hayman, supra, pages 210-.219. But abuse of judicial process must rather be risked than denial of fundamental rights, see United States v. Tribote, 297 F.2d 598 (2 Cir., decided November 22, 1961). Moreover in suitable instances the perjury statute may be invoked.
Reversed and remanded for hearing.
. Although 18 U.S.C.A. § 4245 provides a procedure by which, upon certification by The Director of The Bureau of Prisons, a prisoner’s competency during the trial may be investigated after his conviction, we do not pause to consider the effect of this section on motions under 28 U.S. C.A. § 2255 grounded on incompetency during the trial resulting from mental disease or defect, see 28 U.Chi.D.Rev. 154 (1960). Even if 18 U.S.C.A. § 4245 be regarded as the exclusive means for pressing such a claim, and we do not at all imply that we would so hold, it was plainly not devised for inquiry into a temporary incapacity without residual effect, Johnston v. United States, 292 F.2d 51 (10th Cir. 1961).

Question: Did the court rule for the defendant on grounds other than procedural grounds? For example, right to speedy trial, double jeopardy, confrontation, retroactivity, self defense. This includes the question of whether the defendant waived the right to raise some claim.
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: B