ÿWPCZ  š§ô `ÛÚÇö|ɵ†Žÿej&ª$f­aRkcü=ò?Á–=sJ.ôäÞ  f4òå7óÅRD1;i‰rE&·7º©¾DWþ¦ªy3O³(ˆ½”€Ï¡k6¦¹3,±ÏfS‹Ï®“ä“ßÏ•§9\duµ\@éf›ÿH;³ëe§æ@Ï3þÁŸÝz=„T¿âÅ9²Â_ÉMúâ‹70â~‘ Ša̱ḊjT—‘P[VŠ©‰œ÷-P÷€ÕA¬?Nz6¤ó')ÁÆpaIuLÖ½¬a!{‚Ë’<˜tgiP¦0`KX’‚fè\:ðòé™r™[Oø&i˜¯Èy3š@ìÅtP(Zµa4+] OF?ùÒbÊhÜeÑ;ao= ƒ}ý…iFþø\À:Xè¯0–€ãÞpˆó²ÐZ"¨ë ƽy›Ù_ä‡ãçYϬŸ‡þÅíUÛc@ ½¶ÄÙ¶ÉÎL©M—óš>¯.x: ”"vE‘{­ qcÍ>©êÁ¬æ%µ"GenN_?> Ôñ¿Ó"á„!ž«×Ÿô;€â‘sDõy•sWúÝð¯îq(„‘X÷—1ÀD½2bÝ.¢*«ÃFâ„WКêÜsÏ5‹#Áš %[ 0Da 0(¥ Í 0ÆÕ › nTUFpN¶^ ¸wÄ4ÈÜë míEfa>bZZƒbòååL××××××××UF#UFiU@¯¯ B ïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïïï 0D        D5PPPPPP AS……ÆØ 0Dž 0Dâ 04& ˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0$X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡ (d:2x2$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€#!#X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó wÝ ƒx2$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€#%¬#X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€physician„defendants€argued€ð"ð€and€the€court€apparentlyÐ ° Ðcame€to€believe€ð"ð€that€Betty€Ann€experienced€an€aspiration,€notÐ †Ö Ðasphyxia€by€choking.€€By€aspiration,€the€defendants€meant€"theÐ \¬ Ðeffects€of€saliva€going€down€into€the€lungs€.€.€.€which€can€lead€toÐ 2‚ Ðinfection,€fluid€in€the€lungs,€and€then€death€if€left€untreated."€Ð X ÐBr.€of€the€Physician„Appellees€at€23.€€This€was€a€more€likely€causeÐ Þ. Ðof€death€than€asphyxia,€they€posited,€inasmuch€as€Betty€Ann€"didÐ ´  Ðnot€suffer€an€obstruction€of€her€airway€at€any€time€when€she€was€inÐ Š Ú Ðthe€hospital."€€òòId.óó«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@.Courier New Regular½’¯.s óY‰.6Xy File3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀøÀTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT- ù- yÝ ƒx2$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€#%¬#X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€district€court€used€"persuasiveness"€and€"credibility"€asÐ ° Ðrough€synonyms€in€connection€with€this€ruling,€and€we€too€use€thoseÐ †Ö Ðterms€as€proxies€for€one€another. èÝ ƒx2$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€#%¬#X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOf€course,€there€are€specific€circumstances€in€which€a€trialÐ ° Ðjudge's€view€of€the€credibility€of€the€evidence€is€an€importantÐ †Ö Ðvariable€in€the€calculus€of€admissibility.€€The€most€obviousÐ \¬ Ðexample€is€in€a€so„called€òòDaubertóó€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòDaubertóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔMerrellÔ_ÔÐ 2‚ ÐDow€Pharm.,€Inc.óó,€509€U.S.€579,€597€(1993)€(explaining€that€"theÐ X ÐRules€of€Evidence€.€.€.€assign€to€the€trial€judge€the€task€ofÐ Þ. Ðensuring€that€an€expert's€testimony€.€.€.€rests€on€a€reliableÐ ´  Ðfoundation");€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔSebaggalaÔ_Ôóó,€256€F.3d€59,€65„Ð Š Ú Ð66€(1st€Cir.€2001)€(discussing€a€trial€court's€considerableÐ ` ° Ðlatitude€in€the€admission€and€exclusion€of€expert€testimony€underÐ 6 †  ÐFed.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€702).€€The€case€at€hand€does€not€fit€within€any€ofÐ  \  Ðthese€exceptions. BÝ ƒx2$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€#%¬#X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€district€court€might€have€mitigated€the€potentialÐ ° Ðprejudice€had€it€taken€a€more€cautious€approach€when€consideringÐ †Ö Ðthe€motion€in€limine.€€For€example,€the€court€might€have€admittedÐ \¬ Ðthe€evidence€conditionally€or€withheld€a€ruling€on€the€motion€untilÐ 2‚ Ðthe€case€came€into€sharper€focus.€€We€hasten€to€add,€however,€thatÐ X Ðwe€offer€these€suggestions€principally€for€the€guidance€of€otherÐ Þ. Ðcourts€in€future€cases€ð"ð€and€we€do€so€recognizing€that€hindsight€isÐ ´  Ðalways€20/20.€€"Trial€judges,€whose€lot€is€often€to€make€swiftÐ Š Ú Ðbattlefield€decisions€on€tangled€evidentiary€matters,€cannot€beÐ ` ° Ðexpected€to€foretell€the€future€with€absolute€accuracy."€€òòUnitedÐ 6 †  ÐStatesóó€v.€òòSepulvedaóó,€15€F.3d€1161,€1184€(1st€Cir.€1993).ÿ.Courier New Regular<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular(ÖÃ9 Z(Times New Roman  d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý'''')ÿÿ!dxdx‡ˆx‰Eþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó&c$"ð"ðà0 àÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡$°âܰX$XÔÔ‡%°q°°$°âÜÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÐ ° ÐÔ#†%X¬X°%°qÅ#ÔÔ‡%„Ѽ„X%X¬ÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†%X¬X„%„ѼY#ÔÔ#†$X%¬XX%X¬ä#Ôó óÐ „Ô ÐÓ¹ÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌNo.€02„1810Ð u Å ÐÌà@ìàWILLIAM€J.€BLAKE,€ET€AL.,ˆÐ ! q Ðà@ˆˆìàPlaintiffs,€Appellants,ˆÐ ÷ G  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ £ó  ÐÌà@˜ ˜ ìàMICHAEL€PELLEGRINO,€ET€AL.,ˆÐ OŸ  Ðà@ÄÄìàDefendants,€Appellees.ˆÐ %u  ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<Ð` AßÐ Ñ! ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ ¶ Ðà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ ŒÜ ÐÌà@œ œ ìà[Hon.€William€G.€Young,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<ã` AßÐ ä4 ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ É ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Selya,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,Ð uÅ ÐÌStahl,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,Ð !q ÐÌand€Lipez,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.Ð Í ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<x` AßÐ yÉ! ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòPhilip€N.€Beauregardóó,€with€whom€òòJohn€A.€Markey,€Jr.óó€andÐ ^ ®# ÐòòBeauregard,€Burke€&€Francoóó€were€on€brief,€for€appellants.Ð 4!„$ Ðà  àòòCurtis€Diedrichóó,€with€whom€òòAlan€B.€Rindleróó,€òòNadine€NasserÐ  "Z% ÐDonovanóó,€òòRindlerððMorgan,€P.C.óó,€òòWilliam€J.€Davenportóó,€òòRichard€M.Ð à"0& ÐHaleyóó,€òòBloom€&€Buellóó,€òòStacey€Morrisóó,€and€òòSloane€&€Walsh,€LLPóó€wereÐ ¶#' Ðon€consolidated€brief,€for€individual€appellees.Ð Œ$Ü( Ðà  àòòJ.€Peter€Kelleyóó,€with€whom€òòMartin€C.€Fosteróó€and€òòFoster€&Ð b%² ) ÐEldridgeóó€were€on€brief,€for€appellee€Southcoast€Health€Systems,Ð 8&ˆ!* ÐInc.,€d/b/a€Charlton€Memorial€Hospital.Ð '^"+ ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ )à$.)à$ ‹‹ÐÓ™ÓÐ SIô)D%/ `oâ@37755„„‰`oâ@‰‹‹SÐÌMay€15,€2003Ð Ê*&1 ÐÐ RHC +ð&2" `oâ@37755 `oâ@ ‹‹RÐÐ(ô)D%3  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÓ  ÓÐ  |-Ì(4? ÐÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€ %¬ XXdÖdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€This€appeal€requires€us€to€exploreÐ ° Ðthe€limits€of€a€trial€judge's€authority€to€remove€a€significantÐ xÈ Ðpiece€of€evidence€from€a€jury's€consideration€based€upon€his€beliefÐ $t Ðthat€the€evidence€lacks€persuasive€force.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€conclude€that,€inÐ Ð  Ðthe€circumstances€of€this€case,€the€judge's€actions€invaded€theÐ | Ì Ðprovince€of€the€jury.€€Because€there€is€a€reasonable€likelihoodÐ ( x  Ðthat€the€error€influenced€the€eventual€verdict,€we€vacate€theÐ Ô$  Ðjudgment€as€to€the€affected€claims€and€remand€the€case€for€a€newÐ €Ð  Ðtrial.Ð ,|  Ðò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óÐ Ø( Ðà ` àOn€October€30,€1998,€Betty€Ann€Blake,€a€profoundlyÐ  ð Ðdisabled€woman€in€her€mid„forties,€was€eating€her€mid„day€meal€atÐ Lœ Ða€daycare€facility.€€A€piece€of€meat€lodged€in€her€throat.€€She€wasÐ øH Ðtaken€to€the€emergency€room€at€Charlton€Memorial€Hospital€(theÐ ¤ô ÐHospital)€in€Fall€River,€Massachusetts.€€Although€laypersonsÐ P  Ðspeculated€that€Betty€Ann€might€be€choking,€she€apparently€refusedÐ üL Ðto€open€her€mouth€and€the€doctors€on€duty€did€not€conduct€a€fullÐ ¨ø  Ðexamination.Ð T!¤" Ðà ` àBetty€Ann€was€admitted€to€the€Hospital.€€The€followingÐ #P$ Ðday,€she€had€a€seizure€and€began€to€display€labored€breathing.€€TheÐ ¬$ü& Ðdoctors€performed€an€esophagoscopy.€€During€the€procedure,€theyÐ X&¨!( Ðdiscovered€a€bolus€of€meat€in€Betty€Ann's€esophagus€and€dislodgedÐ (T#* Ðit.€€Shortly€thereafter,€Betty€Ann€suffered€a€heart€attack.€€SheÐ ° Ðdied€on€November€1,€1998€(approximately€twenty„four€hours€afterÐ \¬ Ðphysicians€removed€the€piece€of€meat€from€her€esophagus).€€TheÐ X Ðdeath€certificate€filed€by€the€medical€examiner€listedÐ ´  Ð"complications€of€asphyxia€by€choking"€as€the€cause€of€death.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àBetty€Ann's€parents,€William€and€Theresa€Blake,Ð  \  Ðindividually€and€as€co„administrators€of€her€estate,€subsequentlyÐ ¸  Ðsued€the€Hospital€and€a€trio€of€physicians€(Drs.€MichaelÐ d´  ÐPellegrino,€Miguel€Brillantes,€and€Thomas€Cahill).€€TheirÐ `  Ðcomplaint,€filed€in€the€federal€district€court,ò òó ó€charged€that€theÐ ¼  Ðdefendants€had€negligently€failed€to€diagnose€Betty€Ann's€conditionÐ h¸ Ðand€had€discriminated€against€her€in€violation€of€Title€III€of€theÐ d ÐAmericans€with€Disabilities€Act€(ADA),ò òó ó€42€U.S.C.€ðððð€12181„12189,Ð À Ðand€the€Rehabilitation€Act,€29€U.S.C.€ðððð€701„796l.ò òó ó€€In€the€courseÐ l¼ Ðof€pretrial€proceedings,€the€district€court€dismissed€the€ADA€claimòòóóò òó óÐ h Ðand€granted€summary€judgment€for€the€physician„defendants€on€theÐ Ä ÐRehabilitation€Act€claimò òó ó.€€The€plaintiffs€have€not€appealed€fromÐ pÀ  Ðthose€orders.Ð !l" Ðà ` àThe€case€went€to€trial€on€the€remaining€counts,€whichÐ È"$ Ðincluded€the€Rehabilitation€Act€claim€against€the€Hospital,€òòseeóó€29Ð t$Ä& ÐU.S.C.€ðð€794,€and€state„law€claims,€grounded€in€malpractice,€forÐ  &p!( Ðwrongful€death€and€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distressÐ Ì'#* Ðagainst€the€physicians.€€ò òó óAt€the€start€of€the€trial,€the€physician„Ð x)È$, Ðdefendants€moved€in€limine€to€exclude€the€death€certificate.€€TheÐ $+t&. Ðcourt€ruled€that€the€death€certificate€constituted€admissibleÐ ° Ðevidence€and€denied€the€motion.€€The€plaintiffs€promptly€introducedÐ \¬ Ðit€into€evidence€and€published€it€to€the€jury.€€The€court€thenÐ X Ðallowed€the€jurors€to€inspect€copies€of€the€death€certificate.Ð ´  Ðà ` àOn€the€fifteenth€day€of€trial,€the€plaintiffs€rested.€Ð ` ° ÐThe€physician„defendants€moved,€inter€alia,€to€strike€the€listedÐ  \  Ðcause€of€death€from€the€death€certificate.€€The€plaintiffsÐ ¸  Ðobjected.€€On€the€seventeenth€day€of€trial€ð"ð€before€the€defendantsÐ d´  Ðhad€presented€any€evidence€ð"ð€the€district€judge€excised€the€wordsÐ `  Ð"asphyxia€by€choking"€from€the€death€certificate,€stating€that€heÐ ¼  Ðhad€come€to€believe€that€Betty€Ann's€death€was€"not€caused€byÐ h¸ Ð'complications€of€asphyxia€by€choking'€as€that€phrase€wasÐ d Ðunderstood€either€by€a€layperson€or€by€physicians."׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À Ðà ` àThe€trial€lasted€another€three€days.€€After€finalÐ l¼ Ðarguments€and€the€court's€charge,€the€jury€commenced€itsÐ h Ðdeliberations.€€On€November€26,€2001,€the€jury€returned€a€verdictÐ Ä Ðfor€the€Hospital€on€the€Rehabilitation€Act€count€but€informed€theÐ pÀ  Ðcourt€that€it€had€reached€an€impasse€on€the€remaining€claims.€€TheÐ !l" Ðcourt€gave€the€deadlocked€jurors€a€modified€òòAllenóó€charge,€òòseeóó€òòAllenóóÐ È"$ Ðv.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€164€U.S.€492,€501€(1896);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòKeeneóó,Ð ° Ð287€F.3d€229,€235€(1st€Cir.€2002),€ò òó óand€directed€them€to€resumeÐ \¬ Ðdeliberations.€€On€November€27,€the€jury€returned€an€across„the„Ð X Ðboard€verdict€for€the€defendants.Ð ´  Ðà ` àThe€plaintiffs€filed€a€timely€motion€for€a€new€trial.€Ð ` ° ÐFed.€R.€Civ.€P.€59(a).€€As€to€the€state„law€claims,€they€arguedÐ  \  Ðthat€the€district€court€had€erred€in€redacting€the€deathÐ ¸  Ðcertificate,€and,€moreover,€that€the€timing€of€the€court's€actionsÐ d´  Ðð"ð€allowing€them€to€introduce€the€unredacted€death€certificate,Ð `  Ðpublish€it€to€the€jury,€and€build€their€case€around€it,€and€thenÐ ¼  Ðstriking€the€pivotal€language€ð"ð€had€doomed€their€chances€ofÐ h¸ Ðprevailing.€€As€to€the€Rehabilitation€Act€claim,€the€plaintiffsÐ d Ðsought€a€new€trial€based€on€the€district€court's€exclusion€ofÐ À Ðmedical€records€of€non„disabled€patients.€€The€lower€court€took€theÐ l¼ Ðmatter€under€advisement.€€It€eventually€denied€the€motion€in€aÐ h Ðwritten€opinion.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlakeóó€v.€òòSouthcoast€Health€Sys.,€Inc.óó,€206€F.Ð Ä ÐSupp.€2d€174€(D.€Mass.€2002).€€The€court€insisted€that€none€of€itsÐ pÀ  Ðactions€constituted€error.€€òòId.óó€at€182.€€With€admirable€candor,Ð !l" Ðhowever,€the€court€conceded€that€if€it€had€erred€in€the€mid„trialÐ È"$ Ðredaction€of€the€death€certificate,€its€error€was€not€harmlessÐ t$Ä& Ð(and,€thus,€would€require€a€new€trial).€€òòId.óó€at€177.€€This€appealÐ  &p!( Ðensued.Ð Ì'#* ÐÌÐ $+t&. Ðò òII.€€THE€STATE„LAW€CLAIMSó óÐ ° Ðà ` àThe€issue€that€lies€at€the€heart€of€this€appeal€relatesÐ xÈ Ðto€the€trial€court's€handling€of€an€evidentiary€matter.€€When€anÐ $t Ðissue€as€to€the€admission€or€exclusion€of€evidence€involves€aÐ Ð  Ðquestion€of€law,€such€as€the€proper€interpretation€of€a€provisionÐ | Ì Ðcontained€in€the€Federal€Rules€of€Evidence,€we€afford€de€novoÐ ( x  Ðreview.€€òòCrowleyóó€v.€òòL.L.€Bean,€Inc.óó,€303€F.3d€387,€394€(1st€Cir.Ð Ô$  Ð2002).€€When,€however,€the€issue€involves€an€application€of€a€givenÐ €Ð  Ðrule€of€evidence€to€particular€facts€or€a€judgment€call€about,€say,Ð ,|  Ðrelevancy,€we€review€solely€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòId.óóÐ Ø( Ðà ` àIdentifying€the€precise€question€at€issue€in€this€appealÐ „Ô Ðposes€certain€complications.€€These€complications€arise€primarilyÐ 0€ Ðfrom€the€parties'€disagreement€about€whether€federal€or€state€lawÐ Ü, Ðgoverns€the€admissibility€vel€non€of€the€death€certificate.€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðplaintiffs€argue€that€state€law€controls€because,€by€statute€inÐ 4„ ÐMassachusetts,€a€party€is€entitled€not€only€to€introduce€anÐ à0 Ðofficial€death€certificate€but€also€to€have€it€serve€as€prima€facieÐ ŒÜ  Ðevidence€of€the€cause€of€death.€€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€46,€ðð€19.€€InÐ 8!ˆ" Ðthe€plaintiffs'€view,€the€Federal€Rules€of€Evidence€"are€notÐ ä"4$ Ðintended€to€substitute€for,€or€trump,€a€clear€state€òòsubstantiveóóÐ $à& Ðright€to€have€certain€evidence€admitted€in€a€state€tort€deathÐ <&Œ!( Ðclaim."€€Br.€of€Appellants€at€27.€€The€defendants€argue€to€theÐ è'8#* Ðcontrary,€asserting€the€primacy€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€Evidence.€Ð ”)ä$, ÐòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€Br.€of€Physician„Appellees€at€25€("The€fact€that€a€stateÐ @+&. Ðstatute€also€existed€regarding€the€admissibility€of€the€deathÐ ° Ðcertificate€[does]€not€trump€the€force€of€the€Federal€Rules€ofÐ \¬ ÐEvidence.").€€Although€this€is€an€interesting€pedagogical€debate,Ð X Ðwe€do€not€resolve€it€here.€€Assuming€arguendo€that€the€FederalÐ ´  ÐRules€of€Evidence€govern€ð"ð€an€assumption€consistent€with€theÐ ` ° Ðdistrict€court's€position€and€optimally€favorable€to€the€defendantsÐ  \  Ðð"ð€the€district€court's€handling€of€the€evidence,€as€we€explainÐ ¸  Ðbelow,€does€not€pass€muster.Ð d´  Ðà@¤¤#ìàò òA.€€òòThe€Erroróó.ó óˆÐ `  Ðà ` àThe€fundamental€question€posed€in€this€case€implicatesÐ Ø( Ðthe€division€of€responsibility€between€judge€and€jury.€€It€asksÐ „Ô Ðwhether€a€judge,€presiding€over€a€jury€trial,€may€rule€on€theÐ 0€ Ðadmissibility€of€evidence€based€upon€his€view€of€the€persuasivenessÐ Ü, Ðof€that€evidence.€€In€other€words,€may€a€trial€judge€refuse€toÐ ˆØ Ðadmit€evidence€simply€because€he€does€not€believe€the€truth€of€theÐ 4„ Ðproposition€that€the€evidence€asserts?€€In€the€circumstances€ofÐ à0 Ðthis€case,€we€answer€that€question€in€the€negative.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ŒÜ  Ðà ` àThe€disputed€evidence€in€this€case€ð"ð€the€cause€of€deathÐ ° Ðspecified€in€the€death€certificate€ð"ð€was€plainly€relevant€to€theÐ \¬ Ðissues€before€the€court.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Even€so,€aÐ X Ðdistrict€court€has€the€authority€to€exclude€relevant€evidence€forÐ ´  Ðvarious€reasons.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€Fed.€R.€Evid.€403€(allowing€theÐ ` ° Ðexclusion€of€evidence€if€the€court€finds€that€its€probative€valueÐ  \  Ðis€substantially€outweighed€by€its€unfairly€prejudicial€effect,€orÐ ¸  Ðthat€the€evidence€would€tend€to€confuse€or€mislead€the€jury).€€ButÐ d´  Ðnone€of€these€mechanisms€allows€a€trial€judge€to€remove€relevantÐ `  Ðevidence€from€the€jury's€universe€solely€because€he€finds€theÐ ¼  Ðevidence€unpersuasive.€€Perhaps€more€importantly,€the€trial€judgeÐ h¸ Ðin€this€case€did€not€invoke€any€of€them.€€Indeed,€the€judge€made€itÐ d Ðvery€clear€that€persuasiveness€(or€the€lack€of€it)€was€theÐ À Ðperceived€problem.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlakeóó,€206€F.€Supp.€2d€at€177€(attributingÐ l¼ Ðthe€decision€to€redact€to€the€fact€that€"the€Court€was€no€longerÐ h Ðpersuaded€by€the€fair€preponderance€of€the€evidence€thatÐ Ä Ð'complications€of€asphyxia€by€choking'€was€the€primary€cause€ofÐ pÀ  ÐBetty€Ann€Blake's€death");€òòid.óó€at€176„77€("As€the€trial€progressedÐ !l" Ð.€.€.€it€became€increasingly€evident€[to€me]€that,€whatever€hadÐ È"$ Ðcaused€the€death€of€Betty€Ann€Blake€after€twenty„seven€hours€ofÐ t$Ä& Ðsuffering,€it€was€not€'complications€of€asphyxia€by€choking.'").Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àThe€question€reduces,€therefore,€to€whether,€in€theÐ Ì'#* Ðabsence€of€special€circumstances,€òòseeóó€òòsupraóó€note€3,€a€trial€judgeÐ x)È$, Ðhas€the€authority€to€exclude€evidence€on€the€basis€of€his€ownÐ $+t&. Ðbelief€as€to€the€persuasiveness€of€that€evidence.€€We€concludeÐ ° Ðthat,€in€a€jury€trial,€no€such€authority€exists.€€After€all,€theÐ \¬ Ðjury€is€the€factfinder,€and€"the€ultimate€arbiter€of€theÐ X Ðpersuasiveness€of€the€proof€must€be€the€factfinder,€not€theÐ ´  Ðlawgiver."€€òòGreenburgóó€v.€òòP.R.€Maritime€Shipping€Auth.óó,€835€F.2dÐ ` ° Ð932,€937€(1st€Cir.€1987).€€This€premise€has€gone€unchanged€over€theÐ  \  Ðyears.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòGallickóó€v.€òòBaltimore€&€Ohio€R.R.€Co.óó,€372€U.S.Ð ¸  Ð108,€114„15€(1963);€òòTennantóó€v.€òòPeoria€&€Pekin€Union€Ry.€Co.óó,€321Ð d´  ÐU.S.€29,€35€(1944).€€"It€is€the€jury,€not€the€court,€which€is€theÐ `  Ðfact„finding€body.€€It€weighs€the€contradictory€evidence€andÐ ¼  Ðinferences,€judges€the€credibility€of€witnesses€.€.€.€and€draws€theÐ h¸ Ðultimate€conclusions€as€to€the€facts."€€òòBoston€&€Me.€R.R.óó€v.Ð d ÐòòCabanaóó,€148€F.2d€150,€152€(1st€Cir.€1945)€(citing€òòTennantóó,€321€U.S.Ð À Ðat€35).Ð l¼ Ðà ` àIn€arrogating€unto€itself€the€power€to€evaluate€theÐ h Ðpersuasiveness€of€the€medical€examiner's€conclusion€about€the€causeÐ Ä Ðof€death,€memorialized€in€the€death€certificate,€the€district€courtÐ pÀ  Ðadverted€to€Fed.€R.€Evid.€104(a)€and€Fed.€R.€Evid.€803(8)€as€theÐ !l" Ðwellsprings€of€its€authority.€€Neither€of€these€rules€adequatelyÐ È"$ Ðunderpins€the€court's€action.Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àFed.€R.€Evid.€104(a)€provides€in€pertinent€part€thatÐ  &p!( Ð"[p]reliminary€questions€concerning€.€.€.€the€admissibility€ofÐ Ì'#* Ðevidence€shall€be€determined€by€the€court."€€This€rule€enables€aÐ x)È$, Ðtrial€judge€to€decide€whether€foundational€facts€have€beenÐ $+t&. Ðestablished€(and,€thus,€whether€particular€pieces€of€evidence€areÐ ° Ðeligible€for€admission).€€òòSeeóó€òòSacramonaóó€v.€òòBridgestone/Firestone,Ð \¬ ÐInc.óó,€106€F.3d€444,€446€(1st€Cir.€1997).€€The€trial€court€"act[s]Ð X Ðas€a€gatekeeper"€when€such€issues€arise.€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð ´  ÐòòHolmquistóó,€36€F.3d€154,€167€(1st€Cir.€1994).€€"If€the€courtÐ ` ° Ðdiscerns€enough€support€in€the€record€to€warrant€a€reasonableÐ  \  Ðperson€in€determining€that€the€evidence€[could€support€that€whichÐ ¸  Ðit€sets€out€to€support,€then]€the€weight€to€be€given€to€theÐ d´  Ðevidence€is€left€to€the€jury."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòPaulinoóó,€13€F.3dÐ `  Ð20,€23€(1st€Cir.€1994).Ð ¼  Ðà ` àRule€104(a)€is€inapposite€here,€for€no€foundational€factsÐ h¸ Ðwere€in€issue.€€Virtually€by€definition,€foundational€facts€areÐ d Ðthose€facts€upon€which€the€admissibility€of€evidence€rests.€€òòSeeóóÐ À ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòPiperóó,€298€F.3d€47,€52€(1st€Cir.€2002);€òòPaulinoóó,Ð l¼ Ð13€F.3d€at€23.ò òó ó€€Those€facts€include€matters€such€as€the€genuinenessÐ h Ðof€a€document€or€statement,€the€maker's€personal€knowledge,€and€theÐ Ä Ðlike.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòNewtonóó€v.€òòRyder€Transp.€Servs.óó,€206€F.3d€772,€775Ð pÀ  Ð(8th€Cir.€2000);€òòRickettsóó€v.€òòCity€of€Hartfordóó,€74€F.3d€1397,€1410Ð !l" Ð(2d€Cir.€1996);€òòOnujioguóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€817€F.2d€3,€5€(1st€Cir.Ð È"$ Ð1987).ò òó ó€€In€this€instance,€those€facts€(e.g.,€the€authenticity€ofÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€death€certificate€and€the€authority€of€the€medical€examiner€toÐ  &p!( Ðsign€it)€were€never€in€dispute.€€The€district€court's€problem€didÐ Ì'#* Ðnot€go€to€any€foundational€fact,€but,€rather,€to€the€very€core€ofÐ x)È$, Ðthe€evidence:€€its€persuasiveness.€€Where,€as€here,€a€piece€ofÐ $+t&. Ðevidence€rests€upon€a€proper€foundation,€Rule€104(a)€does€notÐ ° Ðpermit€a€trial€judge€to€usurp€the€jury's€function€and€exclude€theÐ \¬ Ðevidence€based€on€the€judge's€determination€that€it€lacksÐ X Ðpersuasive€force.Ð ´  Ðà ` àThe€district€court€also€suggested€that€Fed.€R.€Evid.Ð ` ° Ð803(8)€empowered€it€to€redact€the€death€certificate€based€on€theÐ  \  Ðperceived€lack€of€credibility.€€We€do€not€agree.€€The€rule€providesÐ ¸  Ðthat€public€records€are€not€excluded€by€the€hearsay€rule€"unlessÐ d´  Ðthe€sources€of€information€or€other€circumstances€indicate€lack€ofÐ `  Ðtrustworthiness."€€Fed.€R.€Evid.€803(8).€€Trustworthiness€in€thisÐ ¼  Ðcontext€refers€to€matters€such€as€whether€the€evidence€is€self„Ð h¸ Ðauthenticating€or€contemporaneously€compiled€by€a€person€ofÐ d Ðadequate€skill€and€experience.€€òòSeeóó€òòBeech€Aircraft€Corp.óó€v.€òòRaineyóó,Ð À Ð488€U.S.€153,€167€n.11€(1988);€òòFDICóó€v.€òòHoudeóó,€90€F.3d€600,€606€(1stÐ l¼ ÐCir.€1996);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Fed.€R.€Evid.€803€advisory€comm.€notes€to€ððÐ h Ð(8),€subsection€(c).ò òó ó€€As€the€district€court's€explication€makesÐ Ä Ðplain,€the€court€did€not€base€its€ruling€on€the€manner€in€which€theÐ pÀ  Ðdeath€certificate€was€completed,€the€sources€of€informationÐ !l" Ðutilized,€the€credentials€of€the€person€completing€it,€or€how€theÐ È"$ Ðrecord€was€maintained.€€Instead,€the€court€premised€its€ruling€onÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€substance€of€what€the€death€certificate€contained.€€This€wasÐ  &p!( Ðerror:€€Rule€803(8)€does€not€authorize€a€trial€court€to€deemÐ Ì'#* Ðevidence€untrustworthy€(and€thus€inadmissible)€simply€because€theÐ x)È$, Ðcourt€finds€the€gist€of€the€evidence€incredible€or€unpersuasive.Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àFor€these€reasons,€we€conclude€that€the€mid„trialÐ ° Ðredaction€of€the€death€certificate,€based€on€the€district€court'sÐ \¬ Ðassessment€that€it€lacked€credibility,€constituted€error.ò òÐ X Ðà@˜ ˜ ìàB.€€òòWas€the€Error€Harmlessóó?ó óˆÐ ´  Ðà ` àOur€determination€that€the€district€court€erred€inÐ | Ì Ðredacting€the€death€certificate€on€the€basis€of€a€credibilityÐ ( x  Ðdetermination€does€not€end€our€inquiry.€€That€error€necessitates€aÐ Ô$  Ðnew€trial€only€if€it€affected€the€plaintiffs'€substantial€rights.€Ð €Ð  ÐFed.€R.€Civ.€P.€61.€€The€test€for€harmless€errorò òòòóóó ó€in€this€caseÐ ,|  Ðtherefore€depends€on€whether€the€erroneous€exclusion€of€evidenceÐ Ø( Ð"result[ed]€in€actual€prejudice€because€it€had€a€substantial€andÐ „Ô Ðinjurious€effect€or€influence€in€determining€the€jury's€verdict."€Ð 0€ ÐòòRuiz„Trocheóó€v.€òòPepsi€Cola€Bottling€Co.óó,€161€F.3d€77,€87€(1st€Cir.Ð Ü, Ð1998)€(citation€omitted).€€Because€this€determination€is€context„Ð ˆØ Ðspecific,€òòNieves„Villanuevaóó€v.€òòSoto„Riveraóó,€133€F.3d€92,€102€(1stÐ 4„ ÐCir.€1997),€we€can€sustain€the€instant€verdict€only€if€we€can€sayÐ à0 Ðwith€fair€assurance,€after€whole„record€review,€that€the€lowerÐ ŒÜ  Ðcourt's€mid„trial€redaction€of€the€death€certificate€did€notÐ 8!ˆ" Ðsubstantially€affect€the€jury's€ultimate€decision.€€òòSeeóó€òòKotteakosóóÐ ä"4$ Ðv.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€328€U.S.€750,€765€(1946).Ð $à& Ðà ` àApplying€this€standard,€we€conclude€that€the€errorÐ <&Œ!( Ðrequires€vacation€of€the€judgment€on€the€state„law€claims.€€We€restÐ è'8#* Ðthis€conclusion€in€substantial€part€on€the€district€court's€ownÐ ”)ä$, Ðassessment€of€the€situation.€€The€court€candidly€described€theÐ @+&. Ðessential€role€that€the€death€certificate€played€in€the€plaintiffs'Ð ° Ðpresentation€of€their€malpractice€claims,€calling€the€strickenÐ \¬ Ðlanguage€"the€centerpiece€of€the€Blakes'€theory."€€òòBlakeóó,€206€F.Ð X ÐSupp.€2d€at€176.€€The€court€went€on€to€conclude€that€if€itsÐ ´  Ðredaction€of€the€document€entailed€error,€that€error€"was€notÐ ` ° Ðharmless."€€òòId.óó€at€177.Ð  \  Ðà ` àWe€do€not€take€these€conclusions€lightly.€€Trials€are,€byÐ ¸  Ðtheir€nature,€dynamic€and€highly€nuanced€affairs.€€The€districtÐ d´  Ðcourt€had€first„hand€knowledge€of€the€ebb€and€flow€of€theÐ `  Ðproceedings€ð"ð€knowledge€that€cannot€fully€be€replicated€by€readingÐ ¼  Ða€cold€appellate€record.€€Consequently,€we€accord€great€respect€toÐ h¸ Ðits€conclusion€regarding€the€centrality€of€the€redacted€language.€Ð d ÐòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòShayóó,€57€F.3d€126,€134€&€n.7€(1st€Cir.Ð À Ð1995).€€The€court's€appraisal€of€the€effect€of€the€redaction€isÐ l¼ Ðequally€deserving€of€deference.€€òòSeeóó€òòLongóó€v.€òòCotrell,€Inc.óó,€265Ð h ÐF.3d€663,€667€(8th€Cir.€2001)€(noting€that€the€trial€court€is€in€aÐ Ä Ðsuperior€position€to€measure€the€effects€of€trial€error);€òòcf.óóÐ pÀ  ÐòòWhitingóó€v.€òòWestrayóó,€294€F.3d€943,€944€(7th€Cir.€2002)€(deferring€toÐ !l" Ðtrial€judge's€determination€of€harmlessness€of€attorney€misconductÐ È"$ Ðin€ruling€on€motion€for€a€new€trial).Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àHere,€moreover,€the€timing€of€the€redaction€ð"ð€on€theÐ  &p!( Ðseventeenth€day€of€a€twenty€day€trial€and€after€the€plaintiffs€hadÐ Ì'#* Ðrested€ð"ð€magnifies€the€prejudice€occasioned€by€the€error.€€TheÐ x)È$, Ðplaintiffs€had€gone€out€on€a€limb€and€built€their€case€around€theÐ $+t&. Ðredacted€language€ð"ð€a€reasonable€tactic,€considering€the€districtÐ ° Ðcourt's€denial€of€the€defendants'€motion€in€limine€and€itsÐ \¬ Ðunconditional€admission€of€the€death€certificate€into€evidence.€Ð X ÐThe€court€then€abruptly€reversed€direction€and€sawed€the€limb€offÐ ´  Ðat€the€eleventh€hour,€bringing€the€plaintiffs'€case€down€with€it.€Ð ` ° ÐIt€is€difficult€to€imagine€a€more€prejudicial€turn€of€events.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  \  Ðà ` àTo€be€sure,€the€district€court€attempted€to€ameliorateÐ ¸  Ðthe€untoward€effects€of€its€about„face€by€instructing€the€jury€notÐ d´  Ðto€draw€any€conclusions€based€on€the€fact€of€the€redaction.€€ButÐ `  Ðthis€is€not€a€garden„variety€instance€of€allowing€a€jury€to€seeÐ ¼  Ðtainted€evidence€and€then€excluding€it.€€In€the€peculiarÐ h¸ Ðcircumstances€of€this€case,€we€do€not€think€that€any€curativeÐ d Ðinstruction€would€have€sufficed.Ð À Ðà ` àThe€general€rule€is€straightforward:€€courts€"normallyÐ l¼ Ðpresume€that€a€jury€will€follow€an€instruction€to€disregardÐ h Ðinadmissible€evidence€inadvertently€presented€to€it."€€òòGreeróó€v.Ð Ä ÐòòMilleróó,€483€U.S.€756,€766€n.8€(1987).€€The€exception€to€the€generalÐ pÀ  Ðrule€is€equally€straightforward:€€the€usual€presumption€does€notÐ !l" Ðapply€when€there€is€an€"overwhelming€probability"€that€theÐ ° Ðinstruction€will€be€ineffectual.€€òòRichardsonóó€v.€òòMarshóó,€481€U.S.Ð \¬ Ð200,€208€(1987).€òòóó€Here,€the€likelihood€is€very€great€that€theÐ X Ðremoval€of€the€evidence€ð"ð€what€the€district€court€termed€"theÐ ´  Ðcenterpiece"€of€the€plaintiffs'€case€ð"ð€was€devastating.€€That€isÐ ` ° Ðenough€to€warrant€a€new€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrutonóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€391Ð  \  ÐU.S.€123,€135€(1968)€(noting€that€"there€are€some€contexts€in€whichÐ ¸  Ðthe€risk€that€the€jury€will€not,€or€cannot,€follow€instructions€isÐ d´  Ðso€great,€and€the€consequences€of€failure€so€vital€to€the€[partyÐ `  Ðintroducing€the€evidence],€that€the€practical€and€human€limitationsÐ ¼  Ðof€the€jury€system€cannot€be€ignored");€òòcf.óó€òòAndersonóó€v.€òòButleróó,€858Ð h¸ ÐF.2d€16,€18€(1st€Cir.€1988)€(holding€that€when€evidence€isÐ d Ðpromised,€and€then€not€received,€jurors€likely€will€draw€a€"heavy"Ð À Ðadverse€inference€from€its€non„appearance).Ð l¼ Ðò òIII.€€THE€REHABILITATION€ACT€CLAIMó óÐ h Ðà ` àThere€is€an€additional€matter€that€warrants€ourÐ à0 Ðattention.€€The€jury€found€for€the€Hospital€on€the€RehabilitationÐ ŒÜ  ÐAct€claim,€and€the€notice€of€appeal€also€brings€that€aspect€of€theÐ 8!ˆ" Ðjudgment€before€us.Ð ä"4$ Ðà ` àThe€Rehabilitation€Act€claim€is€structurally€differentÐ $à& Ðfrom€the€state„law€malpractice€claims,€and€the€plaintiffs,€onÐ <&Œ!( Ðappeal,€have€neither€addressed€any€developed€argumentation€to€thisÐ è'8#* Ðaspect€of€the€jury's€verdict€nor€given€any€explanation€as€to€howÐ ”)ä$, Ðthe€belated€redaction€of€the€death€certificate€prejudiced€theÐ @+&. Ðpresentation€of€their€Rehabilitation€Act€claim.€€By€the€same€token,Ð ° Ðthey€have€not€pursued€their€claim€of€error€in€the€exclusion€ofÐ \¬ Ðrelevant€medical€records.€€òòSeeóó€òòsupraóó.Ð X Ðà ` àIt€is€a€familiar€rule€in€this€circuit€that€when€issues€onÐ ´  Ðappeal€are€unaccompanied€by€some€meaningful€effort€at€developedÐ ` ° Ðargumentation,€they€are€deemed€to€have€been€abandoned.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,Ð  \  ÐòòRyanóó€v.€òòRoyal€Ins.€Co.óó,€916€F.2d€731,€734€(1st€Cir.€1990);€òòUnitedÐ ¸  ÐStatesóó€v.€òòZanninoóó,€895€F.2d€1,€17€(1st€Cir.€1990).€€We€thereforeÐ d´  Ðaffirm€the€judgment€entered€in€favor€of€the€Hospital€on€theÐ `  ÐRehabilitation€Act€claim.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àTo€be€sure,€this€removes€from€the€framework€of€the€caseÐ h¸ Ðthe€hook€upon€which€federal€jurisdiction€originally€hung€and€leavesÐ d Ðthe€district€court,€on€remand,€with€only€the€state„law€claimsÐ À Ðagainst€the€physician„defendants.€€The€district€court€nonethelessÐ l¼ Ðhas€the€option€of€retaining€supplemental€jurisdiction€andÐ h Ðproceeding€to€retry€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòRodriguezóó€v.€òòDoral€MortgageÐ Ä ÐCorp.óó,€57€F.3d€1168,€1177€(1st€Cir.€1995)€(holding€that€on€remandÐ pÀ  Ða€district€court€has€discretion,€after€assessing€the€totality€ofÐ !l" Ðthe€circumstances,€to€retain€supplemental€jurisdiction€over€state„Ð È"$ Ðlaw€claims€"notwithstanding€the€.€.€.€demise€of€all€foundationalÐ t$Ä& Ðfederal€claims").ò òó óÐ  &p!( Ðò òIV.€€CONCLUSIONó óÐ Ì'#* Ðà ` àWe€need€go€no€further.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€in€favorÐ ”)ä$, Ðof€the€Hospital€on€the€Rehabilitation€Act€claim€but€vacate€theÐ @+&. Ðjudgment€in€favor€of€the€physician„defendants€on€the€state„lawÐ ° Ðclaims€and€remand€that€aspect€of€the€case€for€a€new€trial.€€ByÐ \¬ Ðredacting€the€operative€cause€of€death€language€from€the€deathÐ X Ðcertificate€on€the€ground€that€it€lacked€persuasive€force,€theÐ ´  Ðdistrict€court€invaded€the€jury's€province€and€thus€exceeded€theÐ ` ° Ðscope€of€its€discretion.€€Occurring,€as€it€did,€near€the€end€of€aÐ  \  Ðlong€trial,€the€probability€is€intolerably€high€that€this€errorÐ ¸  Ðunfairly€caused€the€plaintiffs'€trial€strategy€to€boomerang€andÐ d´  Ðcontaminated€the€ensuing€verdict€on€the€state„law€claims.Ð `  Ðà ` àLet€us€be€perfectly€clear.€€We€do€not€hold€that€the€deathÐ ¼  Ðcertificate€must€be€admitted€into€evidence€at€a€subsequent€trial.€Ð h¸ ÐThere€may€be€grounds€for€its€exclusion€apart€from€the€deficientÐ d Ðground€relied€upon€by€the€district€court.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòFreemanóó€v.Ð À ÐòòPackage€Mach.€Co.óó,€865€F.2d€1331,€1340€(1st€Cir.€1988)€(discussingÐ l¼ Ðtrial€courts'€wide€discretion€in€admitting€or€excluding€evidenceÐ h Ðunder€Fed.€R.€Evid.€403).€€That€question€is€not€before€us,€however,Ð Ä Ðand€we€express€no€opinion€on€it.€€After€all,€"when€a€trial€courtÐ pÀ  Ðerroneously€excludes€evidence,€and€the€exclusion€meets€the€standardÐ !l" Ðcriteria€of€harmfulness,€the€harm€is€not€cured€by€a€mereÐ È"$ Ðpossibility€that€other€appropriate€grounds€for€exclusion€of€theÐ t$Ä& Ðsame€evidence€may€later€be€found€to€exist."€€òòRuiz„Trocheóó,€161€F.3dÐ  &p!( Ðat€88.Ð Ì'#* Ðâ âÐ x)È$, Ðà ` àò òòòThe€judgment€in€favor€of€Southcoast€Health€Systems,€Inc.,Ð ° Ðâ âd/b/a€Charlton€Memorial€Hospital€is€affirmedóó.€€òòThe€judgment€inÐ xÈ Ðfavor€of€the€physician„defendants€is€vacated€and€the€case€isÐ @ Ðremanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinionóó.€Ð  X ÐòòCosts€are€awarded€to€the€plaintiffs€as€against€the€physician„Ð Ð  Ðdefendantsóó.ó ó