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, Appellee, v. Wayland WHITE, Jr., Appellant.
No. 8488.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 6, 1962.
Decided June 8, 1962.
Robert S. Cahoon, Greensboro, N. C., for appellant.
R. Roy Mitchell, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (William H. Murdock, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, and CRAVEN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is a companion case to United States v. Copeland, 4 Cir., 295 F.2d 635.
Wayland White, Jr., the defendant here, was jointly indicted with Copeland and others for an alleged conspiracy to violate Internal Revenue Laws relating to whisky.
White could not be present when his codefendants were tried and convicted. Later, he was tried separately. Testimony was then introduced, which is summarized in our opinion in Copeland. The principal witness for the prosecution testified that he purchased whisky from White, that White was present during another transaction alleged to have been in furtherance of the conspiracy, that White, himself, negotiated with the witness for the sale and delivery of whisky and the procurement of jars and sugar. This witness also testified that White told him some of the details of the conspiracy.
White now seeks a reversal of his conviction upon the ground that the court erroneously received in evidence statements of certain of the alleged co-conspirators, showing the conspiracy and White’s participation. He particularly objects to some of the statements received in evidence before direct evidence of White’s participation in the conspiracy had been received.
These are identically the same contentions raised by White’s co-conspirator, Copeland, and which we have fully considered on Copeland’s appeal from his conviction.
For the reasons stated in United States v. Copeland, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.

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