Task: songer_suffic

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that there was insufficient evidence for conviction?" 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 trial court found Green guilty of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (1964), and of conspiracy to. violate 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) (1964) and Green appeals. We affirm the conviction.
From the findings of the trial court which are supported by ample evidence it appears that Green participated in a conspiracy to cash winning twin double tickets at Yonkers and Roosevelt Raceways. The purpose of the conspiracy was to keep secret from the raceway officials, and ultimately from the Internal Revenue Service, the identity of true winners on these tickets.
Green contends that his conviction on the conspiracy count must be- set aside because he was charged with conspiring with one Sandler and there is insufficient evidence of Sandler’s participation. However, the indictment charged Green with conspiring not only with Sandler but with other persons unknown to the Grand Jury. The evidence as to conspiracy with various winners was clearly sufficient to establish the conspiracy.
“Of course, at least two persons are required to constitute a conspiracy, but the identity of the other members of the conspiracy is not needed, inasmuch as one person can be convicted of conspiring with persons whose names are unknown.” Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 375, 71 S.Ct. 438, 443, 95 L.Ed. 344 (1951).
Moreover, there was evidence that Green had Sandler obtain for him a quantity of losing twin double tickets to offset the winning tickets.
Green also urges that he was not properly convicted of perjury. The question which elicited the allegedly perjurious answer, “No,” was:
“Now, from then [1964] until the present did you engage in any transaction at Yonkers Raceway where you either gave winning twin double tickets to others to cash or cashed winning twin double tickets which you received from others ?”
Green’s contention that he thought the question referred only to transactions involving more than one ticket is clearly frivolous. In any event a moment later Green answered, “No” to the question:
“During that entire period then you neither cashed anyone else’s ticket or gave anyone else a ticket to cash for you?”
Finally Green argues that the evidence as to perjury did not satisfy the two witness rule. However, apart from the corroboration of each other’s testimony provided by two witnesses each testifying to different transactions, see United States v. Manfredonia, 414 F.2d 760, 764 (2d Cir. 1969), the evidence of a witness as to one of the transactions was corroborated by Green’s own admission. See United States v. Marchisio, 344 F.2d 653, 665 (2d Cir. 1965).

Question: Did the court rule that there was insufficient evidence for conviction?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: A