What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the 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".

Opinion:
UNITED STATES of America v. Samuel WILLIAMS, Appellant.
Nos. 23093, 23098.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Nov. 3, 1970.
Mr. J. Gordon Forester, Jr., Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) was on the brief for appellant.
Messrs. Thomas A. Flannery, U. S. Atty., and John A. Terry and John R. Dugan, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief for appellee.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and MeGOWAN and TAMM, Circuit Judges, in Chambers.
PER CURIAM:
These appeals are from jury convictions of passing and uttering counterfeited obligations of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 472), and for intimidating a government witness (18 U.S.C. § 1503). The three issues raised by appellant on appeal all relate to matters to which no objection was taken in the trial court.
Appellant first argues that the trial judge abused his discretion by failing to exclude prior convictions of witnesses who testified for appellant. See Luck v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 348 F.2d 763 (1965). In Davis v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 167, 409 F.2d 453 (1969), this court held that the Luck doctrine applies to impeachment by prior convictions of all witnesses, not just the accused. However, unless the trial judge’s discretion in this regard is properly invoked in the first instance with respect to an accused testifying in his own defense, it cannot normally be held on appeal to have been abused. See, e. g., Evans v. United States, 130 U.S. App.D.C. 114, 397 F.2d 675 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 907, 89 S.Ct. 1016, 22 L.Ed.2d 218 (1969); Harley v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 287, 377 F.2d 172 (1967); Hood v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 365 F.2d 949 (1966). The same principle is a fortiori applicable to defense witnesses other than the accused.
Appellant’s second contention focuses upon the trial judge’s explanatory remarks prefatory to his instruction to the jury with respect to the impeachment of defense witnesses. The trial judge stated that a counsel vouches for the credibility of the witnesses he produces. Appellant charges that these remarks put the credibility of the defense counsel in issue. This appears to be a strained construction of what was said; and we note that trial counsel himself saw no occasion to object. Under the circumstances, we find no basis for reversal in this incident.
Finally, appellant contends that he was fatally prejudiced by the allegedly improper cross-examination by the prosecutor of certain character witnesses offered by appellant. Questions were asked as to the witnesses’ knowledge of previous arrests of appellant for robbery, possession of a prohibited weapon, and housebreaking. There is considerable latitude to ask character witnesses about the state of their knowledge of defendant’s background and experience as they bear upon his reputation for honesty and integrity. See Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1958); Cf. United States v. Wooden, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 420 F.2d 251 (1969). Whether the government’s cross-examination in this instance was within the permissible bounds need not be definitely resolved by us since there was no objection to the questions asked. Of this point, as of the others discussed above, it is true in any event that the error, if any, was harmless when considered by reference to the entire record. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946).
Affirmed.
. Appellant has also belatedly challenged in this court the constitutionality of 14 D.C.Code § 305. The issue is untimely; and see Bailey v. United States, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 242, 426 F.2d 1236 (1970).

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?

Choices:
No
Yes
Yes, but error was harmless
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 0