FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT APRIL8, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 14601 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -012 03 -C V -O D E -1 T O R Y B A N K S T O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s N O R F O L K S O U T H E RN R A I L W A Y C O R P O R A T I O N , N O R F O L K S O U T H E RN C O R P O R A T I O N , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A p r i l8, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:In his reply brief, B ankston raise s an additional issue in passing : “Whether the verdict 1 and judgment entered in the District Court was suppor ted by the evidenc e.” B ankston’s initial brief addresse d only

evidentiar

y issues. Be cause“[i] ssues that arenot clearly outlined in an appellant’ s initi al brief

aredeeme d abandone d,” Allison v. McGhan Me d. Corp., 184 F.3d 1300, 1317 n.17 (11th Cir. 1999), we de cline to address this additional question. 2 T h is is T o ry B a n k s to n ’s ap p e a l f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in a l ju d g m e n t in f a vorof N or f ol k S outhe rn R a i l w a y C orpor a t i on a nd N or f ol k S outhe rn C orpor a t i on ( c ol l e c t i ve l y “ N or f

ol k S outhe rn” ) i n thi s pe r s ona l i nj ury a c t i on. B a nks t on c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a d e th r e e e rr o n e o u s e v id e n tia ry ru lin g s th a t e n title h im to a r e v e r s a l o f

th a t ju d g m e n t a n d a n e w tr ia l. 1

I. I n S e p te m b e r2 0 0 4 B a n k s to n w a s w a lk in g a lo n g s id e r a ilr o a d tr a c k s in At l a n t a , Ge o r g i a wh e n h e wa s s tru c k b y a tr a i n o p e r a t e d b y No r f o l k S o u th e rn . As a r e s u lt o f

th is a c c id e n t, B a n k s to n w a s s e v e r e ly in ju r e d a n d lo s t b o th o f

h is le g s . B a nks t on c l a i m s tha the w a s w a l ki ng a tl e a s tt e n f e e ta w a y f

r om the tr a c ks w he n he w as struck and t hata pol e j ut t i ng ou tfr om the tra i n snagg ed hi s bac kp ac k, pu l l ed hi m si dew ay s a nd pi nn ed hi m agai nstthe tra i n. N orfol k S ou thern di sput es that a c c ount , s ugge s t i ng i ns t e a d tha tB a nks t on w a s a tt e m pt i ng t o boa r d the m ovi ng tr a i n w he n the a c c i de ntoc c urr e d. In A pri l 20 05 B ankst on sued N orfol k S ou thern and an u nk no w n rai l road e n g in e e r( u n d e rth e f

ic titio u s n a m e J o h n D o e ) in F u lto n C o u n ty S u p e r io rC o u r t.3

B ankst on se rved N orfol k S ou thern, bu the never s erved the John D oe ra i l road e n g in e e r . N o r f

o lk S o u th e rn r e m o v e d th e c a s e to f e d e r a l c o u r t o n d iv e r s ity j uri sdi ct i on grou nd s. A ft erthe ca se w as re m ov ed, the part i es cond uct ed di sc ov ery and N orfol k S ou thern m ov ed for s um m ary j ud gm ent . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed N o r f o lk S o u th e rn ’s m o tio n a n d th e c a s e p r o c e e d e d to a ju ry tr ia l. B e f o r e tr ia l, B a n k s to n m o v e d in lim in e to e x c lu d e : ( 1 ) th e te s tim o n y o f b o th D r . W a l t e rI ngr a m a nd D r . V l a di m i rD a da s he v tha tthe y be l i e ve d the a c c i de nt occurre d w hi l e B ankst on w as try i ng t o b oard a m ov i ng tra i n, and a m edi ca l re po rt by D r . I ngr a m c ont a i ni ng the s a m e e xpl a na t i on of how the a c c i de ntoc c urr e d; ( 2) l ay op i ni on t es t i m on y by a n A t l ant a pol i ce offi ce r s pecul at i ng thatB ankst on w as in ju r e d w h ile a tte m p tin g to c r o s s th e tr a in tr a c k s w h ile th e tr a in w a s in itia lly s t oppe d butthe n s t a r t e d t o m ove ; a nd ( 3) e vi de nc e of B a nks t on’ s pa s tf

e l ony conv i ct i on s i ntrodu ce d t o i m peac h h i s c re di bi l i ty. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed B a nks t on’ s m ot i on a s t o the doc t or s ’ t e s t i m ony , D r . I ngr a m ’ s r e por t , a nd the e vi de nc e of

the pa s tf

e l ony c onvi c t i ons . T he di s tr i c tc our tde f e rr e d rul i ng on the p o l i ce o ffi cer’s l ay o p i n i o n t est i m o n y. A f t e rhe a r i ng the e vi de nc e a nd a r gum e ntof both pa r t i e s , the j ury r e turne d a ve r di c tf i ndi ng tha tN or f

ol k S outhe rn w a s notl i abl e f orB a nks t on’ s i nj ur i e s . T he di stri ctcourtthen ent er ed a j ud gm enti n favor of N orfol k S ou thern. B ankst on fi l ed4

th is ap p e a l. II. A s a n in itia l m a tte r , w e m u s t f ir s t a d d r e s s o u ro w n ju r is d ic tio n to h e a rth is appe a l . W e pos e d a j ur i s di c t i ona l que s t i on t o the pa r t i e s a s ki ng w he the rthe e xi s t e nc e of

the uns e r ve d J ohn D oe de f e nda nta f f e c t e d the f

i na l i ty of the j udgm e nt i n favor of N orfol k S ou thern. T he part i es bri ef ed the i ss ue and b oth con t end that the j udgm e ntw a s a f

i na l appe a l abl e or de r . W e a gr e e . I n I ns i nga v. L a B e l l a , 817 F . 2d 14 69 (11th C i r. 19 87 ), w e c on cl ud ed that“ w here fi nal j ud gm enthas bee n ent er ed as t o al l defe nd ant s w ho have been served w i th p roce ss and o nl y unserved de f e nda nt s r e m a i n, the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rm a y be c ons i de r e d f i na l unde r28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1 for pu rposes of perf ec t i ng an appeal . ” I nsi ng a, 81 7 F . 2d at 1469–70; s e e a l s o L om a n D e v. C o. v. D a y t ona H ot e l & M ot e l S uppl i e r s , I nc . , 817 F . 2d 15 33 , 15 36 (11th C i r. 19 87 ) ( “ [F ] or the pu rposes of R ul e 54, the un se rved de f e nda nt s w e r e noty e t‘ pa r t i e s ’ a nd no c e r t i f i c a t i on w a s ne c e s s a ry f

orthe j udgm e ntt o be c om e f

i na l . ” ) . I n thi s c a s e , j udgm e ntha s be e n e nt e r e d i n f a vorof the N orfol k S ou thern ent i t i es , the on l y part i es w ho w er e s erved. T he di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en tst at es th atth e act i o n i s “ d i sm i ssed o n th e m eri t s. ” A cco rd i n g l y, thatj ud gm entended the l i t i gat i on and i s f i nal and app ea l abl e.5 III. T urni ng t o the subst ance of thi s app ea l , B ankst on cont ends thatthe di stri ct court ’ s f i nal j ud gm entshou l d b e r ever se d o n the grou nd thatthe courtm ade three e rr one ous e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs . W e r e vi e w thos e rul i ngs onl y f ora n abus e of d is c r e tio n . B r o c h u v . C ity o f R iv ie r a B e a c h , 3 0 4 F .3 d 1 1 4 4 , 1 1 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T hi s r e vi e w i s e xtr e m e l y de f e r e nt i a l , s e e C ook e x r e l . E s t a t e of T e s s i e rv. S he r i f

f of M on roe C ou nty, F l a. , 40 2 F . 3d 10 92 , 11 03 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( “ [T ] he defer ence that i s the hal l m ark o f abu se -of- di sc re t i on re vi ew re qu i re s thatw e notre vers e a n e v id e n tia ry d e c is io n o f

a d is tr ic t c o u r t u n le s s th e ru lin g is m a n if e s tly e rr o n e o u s . T h u s , it is b y n o w a x io m a tic th a t a d is tr ic t c o u r t e n jo y s c o n s id e r ab le le e w a y in m a ki ng the s e de t e r m i na t i ons . ” ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ) , a nd w e w i l l re vers e onl y w here “ a s ub st ant i al ri gh tof the party i s a ff ec t ed, ” F eder al R ul e of E vi dence 103 (a ). C f. F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 61 (“ U nl es s j ust i ce r e qui r e s othe rw i s e , no e rr ori n a dm i tt i ng ore xc l udi ng e vi de nc e . . . i s gr ound f or gr a nt i ng a ne w tr i a l , f

ors e tt i ng a s i de a ve r di c t , orf orva c a t i ng, m odi f

y i ng, or othe rw i s e di s turbi ng a j udgm e ntoror de r . A te ve ry s t a ge of the pr oc e e di ng, the courtm ustdi sr egar d al l errors and d ef ec t s thatdo no af

fe ctany party’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. ”) .6 A. B a nks t on f

i r s tc ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by denyi ng hi s m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ud e D r. Ingram ’ s hospi t al re po rt , w hi ch c ont a i ne d a de s c r i pt i on of how the a c c i de ntoc c urr e d, a s w e l l a s D r . I ngr a m ’ s a nd D r . D a da s he v’ s t e s t i m ony on the s a m e s ubj e c t , on the gr ound tha tthe r e por ta nd t e s t i m ony w e r e i na dm i s s i bl e he a r s a y . B a nks t on a r gue s tha tthe de s c r i pt i ons of the a c c id e n t in th e d o c to r s ’ te s tim o n y a n d in D r . I n g r a m ’s r e p o r t a r e in a d m is s ib le he a r s a y a nd tha tthe s t a t e m e nt s a r e ne i the ra dm i s s i ons of a pa r ty oppone ntnor s ta te m e n ts m a d e f

o rth e p u rp o s e o f

m e d ic a l d ia g n o s is o rtr e a tm e n t. H e a r s a y i s ty p i c a l l y n o ta d mi s s i b l e u n l e s s a n e x c e p t i o n ap p l i e s . Fe d . R. E vi d. 802. F e de r a l R ul e of E vi de nc e 801( d) pr ovi de s tha ta “ s t a t e m e nti s not h e a r s a y i f

. . . [ t ] h e s t a t e m e n ti s o f f e r e d a g a i n s ta p a r ty a n d i s . . . th e p a r ty ’ s o wn s ta te m e n t.” F e d . R . E v id . 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) . R u le 8 0 3 ( 4 ) e x c lu d e s f r o m th e h e a r s a y ru le

“ [ s ] t a t e m e nt s m a de f

orpurpos e s of

m e di c a l di a gnos i s ortr e a tm e nta nd de s c r i bi ng m e di c a l hi s t ory , orpa s torpr e s e nts y m pt om s , pa i n, ors e ns a t i ons , orthe i nc e pt i on orge ne r a l c ha r a c t e rof

the c a us e ore xt e rna l s our c e the r e of a s r e a s onabl y pe r t i ne nt to d ia g n o s is o rtr e a tm e n t.” F e d . R . E v id . 8 0 3 ( 4 ) . W e n e e d n o t r e a c h B a n k s to n ’s a r g u m e n t, b e c a u s e e v e n if w e w e r e to concl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of B ankst on ’ s m ot i on on thi s poi ntw er e7

e rr one ous , tha te rr orw oul d be ha r m l e s s . F i r s t , B a nks t on di d nots e e k i n hi s m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ud e a no ther m edi ca l re po rt , autho re d b y D r. D adas hev, w hi ch c o n ta in e d a n a lm o s t v e rb a tim d e s c r ip tio n o f h o w th e a c c id e n t o c c u rr e d . N o rd id B ankst on obj ec ton hear sa y groun ds w hen N orfol k S ou thern offer ed D r. D ad ash ev ’ s rep o rti n t o ev i d en ce an d th e d i stri ctco u rtad m i tt ed i t . A p arty m u st m a ke a t i m e l y obj e c t i on t o pr e s e r ve a n e vi de nt i a ry i s s ue f orappe l l a t e r e vi e w . F e d. R . E vi d. 10 3(a) (1); U ni t ed S t at es v. H ou st on , 45 6 F . 3d 13 28 , 13 38 (11th C i r. 2006) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Z i nn, 321 F . 3d 1084, 1090 n. 7 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ; I r vi ng v. M az d a M o to r C o rp ., 1 3 6 F .3 d 7 6 4 , 7 6 7 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). B ec au se D r. D ad as h ev ’s r e p o r t w a s n o t o b

je c te d to o n h e a r s a y g r o u n d s , a n d b e c a u s e it c o n ta in e d e s s e n tia lly the sa m e s t at em ent s e xp l ai ni ng ho w the ac ci dentoccurre d, the j ury w ou l d h ave had th e s am e in fo rm atio n b ef o re itev en if th e d istrict co u rt h ad g ra n ted B an k sto n ’s m o t i o n i n l i m i n e w i th reg ard t o D r. In g ram ’ s rep o rtan d b o th d o ct o rs’ t est i m o n y. M o r e o v e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to a d m it D r . I n g r a m ’s r e p o r t a n d to allo w th e tes ti m o n y o f D r. In g ra m an d D r. D ad as h ev d id n o t aff ec t B an k sto n ’s

“ subst ant i al ri gh t s” such thatre vers al i s nec es sa ry . N orfol k S ou thern pres ent ed t e s t i m ony a nd e xhi bi t s t o the j ury f r om w hi c h the j ury r e a s onabl y c oul d ha ve c o n c lu d e d th a t B a n k s to n ’s th e o ry o f h o w th e a c c id e n t o c c u rr e d w a s im p o s s ib le . W i tne s s e s t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe ty pe of

tr a i n i nvol ve d i n the a c c i de ntw oul d notha ve8

h ad an y p o l es j u tt i n g o u tfro m i t . T h ere w as al so t est i m o n y th atg i v en th e cl o se qua r t e r s the tr a i n pa s s e d thr ough ne a rw he r e the a c c i de ntoc c urr e d, a ny thi ng p r o tru d in g f

r o m th e tr a in w o u ld h a v e b e e n d e s tr o y e d . A d d itio n a lly , N o r f o lk S ou thern el i ci t ed t es t i m on y f rom tw o o f i t s e m pl oyee s on ano ther tra i n thatpass ed the tra i n i nv ol ved i n the ac ci dentw ho vi sual l y i nspect ed thattra i n and di d n otse e an y p o les p ro tru d in g fr o m it . A ll o f th is ev id en ce so u n d ly d isp ro v ed B an k sto n ’s theory of how the ac ci dentoccurre d, and al l B ankst on ’ s off er ed t o cou nt eri tw as hi s ow n st ory. E ven i f the di stri ctcourthad excl ud ed the t es t i m on y a nd re po rtthat sugg es t ed B ankst on had tri ed t o b oard the m ov i ng tra i n, there w as st i l l such ov erw hel m i ng evi dence thatthe ac ci dentcoul d n othave occurre d the w ay Ba n k s t o n s a i d i td i d , o ri n a w a y th a tw o u l d r e n d e rN o r f o l k So u th e rn l i ab l e t o h i m, th ath i s su b st an t i al ri g h t s w ere n o taffected b y th e ad m i ssi o n o f th e d o ct o rs’ te s tim o n y a n d D r . I n g r a m ’s r e p o r t. B. B a nks t on a l s o c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng hi s m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o e xc l ude opi ni on t e s t i m ony by a pol i c e of f i c e r , w ho a rr i ve d a tthe s c e ne of

the a c c i de nts hor t l y a f

t e ri thappe ne d, c onc e rni ng how the ac ci dentoccurre d. F eder al R ul e 701 autho ri ze s opi ni on t es t i m on y by l ay w i tness es w he r e the opi ni on i s : “ ( a ) r a t i ona l l y ba s e d on the pe r c e pt i on of the w i tne s s , ( b)9

hel pful t o a cl ea r und er st andi ng of the w i tness ’ t es t i m on y or the det erm i nat i on of a fa cti n i ss ue, and (c) no tbase d o n sci ent i fi c, t ec hn i ca l , or other s peci al i ze d k n o w l e d g e w i th i n th e s c o p e o f [ th e Ru l e g o v e rn i n g e x p e r tt e s t i mo n y ] . ” Fe d . R. E v id . 7 0 1 . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notde ny B a nks t ow n’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne a s t o the o p in io n in q u e s tio n b u t in s te a d d e f e rr e d ru lin g o n th e is s u e . W h e n N o r f o lk S outhe rn’ s c ouns e l a s ke d the of f i c e rf orhi s opi ni on, ba s e d on hi s obs e r va t i ons of the s c e ne of

the a c c i de nta nd B a nks t on’ s i nj ur i e s , of how the a c c i de ntoc c urr e d, the di stri ctcourtov errul ed B ankst on ’ s c ou nsel ’ s obj ec t i on t o the qu es t i on and al l ow ed the offi ce r t o o ff

erhi s l ay op i ni on . T he offi ce r then t es t i fi ed thathe thatbel i eved r i ghtbe f or e the a c c i de nt , “ the tr a i n w a s a c tua l l y a ta s t op. ” H e of f e r e d hi s opi ni on th a t B a n k s to n : w as try i ng t o ei ther go o ver [ the tra i n] or un derneath i tw hen i tst art ed t o m ove w hi c h c a us e d hi m t o be pi nne d by the w he e l s w hi c h i s w hy h e g o t c a u g h t a n d k in d o f g r o u n d u p . B e c a u s e if

it w a s g o in g f

a s t, it w oul d ha ve c utr i ghtthr ough hi m . S o i tw a s ki nd of goi ng s l ow i ng and p i nched h i m , so he w as abl e t o g o w i th i tun t i l he w as abl e t o g et fr ee . R 4: 82: 269. A s w ith B a n k s to n ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e d o c to r s ’ te s tim o n y a n d r e p o r t s h o u ld have been excl ud ed, w e nee d n otre ac h thi s i ss ue because even i f the di stri ctcourt abused i t s di sc re t i on i n p erm i tt i ng i t , any e rr or w ou l d b e harm l es s. T he po l i ce10

o f f ic e r ’s o p in io n a s to h o w th e a c c id e n t o c c u rr e d w a s n o t th e th e o ry N o r f o lk S ou thern argued t o the j ury— N orfol k S ou thern m ai nt ai ned thatB ankst on w as i nj ur e d w hi l e try i ng t o boa r d a m ovi ng tr a i n. S e e ge ne r a l l y J one s v. O t i s E l e va t or C o. , 861 F . 2d 655, 661 ( 11th C i r . 1988) ( not i ng tha ti tw a s ha r m l e s s e rr orf orthe d is tr ic t c o u r t to in s tru c t th e ju ry o n a n e rr o n e o u s th e o ry th a t n e ith e rp a r ty a r g u e d to th e ju ry a n d th a t w a s n o t “n o t n e c e s s a ry to s u b s ta n tia te th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t” ) . M oreover, as w e have al re ady e xp l ai ned, there w as ov erw hel m i ng evi dence that B a nks t on’ s e xpl a na t i on of how the a c c i de ntoc c urr e d w a s nott e nabl e , the r e by re li ev in g N o rf

o lkS o u th er n o f a n y liab il ity f o r h is in ju ries w ith o u t th e o ff

icer ’s o p i n i o n t est i m o n y. C. B a n k s to n ’s f

in a l c o n te n tio n is th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in de ny i ng hi s m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o e xc l ude “ a ny r e f e r e nc e t o a ny pa s torpr e s e nt cr i m i nal conv i ct i on . ” T he thrustof hi s a rgum enti s thathi s pas tcr i m i nal c onvi c t i ons a r e i n no w a y pr oba t i ve a nd tha tthe y w e r e e xtr e m e l y pr e j udi c i a l . T he F e d e r a l R u le s o f

E v id e n c e p e r m it im p e a c h m e n t o f a w itn e s s ’ tru th f

u ln e s s w ith e vi de nc e of

a c r i m e tha ti s “ puni s habl e by de a th ori m pr i s onm e nti n e xc e s s of one y e a ru n d e rth e l a w w h i c h th e wi tn e s s wa s c o n v i c t e d . ” Fe d . R. Ev i d . 6 0 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) . To g u a r d a g a in s t th e d a n g e r s o f u n f a irc h a r a c te re v id e n c e , th e ru le s r e q u ir e th e c o u r t to11

de t e r m i ne w he the r“ the pr oba t i ve va l ue of a dm i tt i ng [ the e vi de nc e of pa s tf e l ony c onvi c t i ons ] outw e i ghs i t s pr e j udi c i a l e f

f e c t . ” I d. N orfol k S ou thern i m peac hed B ankst on ’ s c re di bi l i ty w i th evi dence of three f e lo n y c o n v ic tio n s th a t to o k p la c e o n ly m o n th s b e f o r e h is c a s e w e n t to tr ia l. I n its w r itte n o r d e rd e n y in g B a n k s to n ’s m o tio n in lim in e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e x p lic itly c onduc t e d the r e qui r e d ba l a nc i ng of the pr oba t i ve va l ue a nd pr e j udi c i a l e f

f e c tof the e vi de nc e a nd c onc l ude d tha ti tw a s a dm i s s i bl e . T he di s tr i c tc our te nj oy s w i de l a t i tu d e i n e x e r c i s i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n th i s a r e a , s e e U n i t e d St a t e s v . A b e l , 4 6 9 U . S. 45, 54, 105 S . C t . 465, 470 ( 1984) , a nd B a nks t on ha s notde m ons tr a t e d tha tthe c our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on. E vi de nc e of B a nks t on’ s thr e e r e c e ntf e l ony c onvi c t i ons i s obvi ous l y pr e

j udi c i a l , buti ti s a l s o hi ghl y pr oba t i ve of hi s c ha r a c t e rf

or truthf ul ne s s . S e e C a m pbe l l v. G r e e r , 831 F . 2d 700, 707 ( 7th C i r . 1987) ( “ R ul e 609 an d th e co m m o n l aw trad i t i o n o u to f w h i ch i tev o l v ed resto n th e co m m o n -sen se prop osi t i on thata per son w ho has f l ou t ed soci ety’ s m ostfund am ent al no rm s, as e m bodi e d i n i t s f

e l ony s t a tut e s , i s l e s s l i ke l y tha n othe rm e m be r s of s oc i e ty t o be de t e rr e d f

r om l y i ng unde roa th i n a tr i a l by the s ol e m ni ty of the oa th, the (m i n u scu l e) d an g er o f p ro secu t i o n fo r p erj u ry, o r i n t ern al i zed eth i cal n o rm s ag ai n st ly in g . I f s o , th is is s o m e th in g a ju ry s h o u ld b e p e r m itte d to ta k e in to a c c o u n t in e v a lu a tin g a w itn e s s ’s b e lie v ab ility .” ) .12

AF F I RME D.