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. John CAPSOTA, Appellant.
No. 435, Docket 25609.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued April 22, 1964.
Decided April 23, 1964.
Edward Q. Carr, Jr., New York City (Anthony F. Marra, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Charles J. Fanning, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, on the brief; Charles A. Stillman, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel), for appellee.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and WATERMAN and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, by his application for a writ of error coram nobis, seeks to vacate two judgments of conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 10, 1937, and April 30, 1941. He is presently incarcerated in the New York State Penitentiary, Dannemora, New York as a multiple offender. His original application was denied without a hearing. On appeal (2 Cir., 260 F.2d 566) we ordered a hearing in accordance with United States ex rel. Farnsworth v. Murphy, 358 U.S. 48, 79 S.Ct. 76, 3 L.Ed.2d 46 (1958), vacating and remanding 254 F.2d 438 (2 Cir.). Pursuant thereto Judge Edelstein held a full hearing and decided that the Government’s testimony was sufficient to meet the requirements of Farnsworth. We have examined the record before us and find that the weight of the evidence supports his finding that appellant intelligently waived his right to counsel before the 1937 plea of guilty and was represented by counsel at the 1941 conviction. The judgment is, therefore,
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