Full opinion text
BOWNES, Circuit Judge. This case arises out of the unwarranted shooting of plaintiff-appellee, Carlos A. Gutierrez-Rodriguez, by police officers of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Plaintiff, rendered a paraplegic as a result of the shooting, sued the officers involved and their supervisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that their actions and omissions deprived him of his constitutional rights. The jury returned a substantial verdict in favor of plaintiff assessing both compensatory and punitive damages against the defendants. Defendants now appeal on numerous assertions of error. We affirm. I. FACTS We recite the facts and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to plaintiff, since the jury found for him. See Kassel v. Gannett Co., 875 F.2d 935, 937 (1st Cir., May 24, 1989) (citing Wagenmann v. Adams, 829 F.2d 196, 200 (1st Cir.1987)). On December 9, 1983, Carlos Gutierrez was a healthy 22-year old. He was regularly employed and had plans to pursue academic studies at the InterAmerican University. On that evening, Gutierrez had a date with Margarita Oquendo. He drove Oquendo to his father’s house to meet his parents for the first time. The house was located in a rural, mountainous section of Barrazas, Carolina, in Puerto Rico. After the visit, Gutierrez and Oquen-do left the house and drove to a nearby secluded spot. He parked the car on the side of the road with the parking lights on. They admired the night scene of San Juan just visible in the distance. Nelson Velazquez, Edwin Gotay, Jesus Moreno and Pedro Soto were members of the Carolina Drugs and Narcotics Division of the Police Department of Puerto Rico. Soto was an investigative agent, or “nine-stripe,” a rank which is slightly higher than patrolman. The other three were un-ranked police officers. On December 9, 1983, they were assigned to do “preventive rounds” in and around the Barrazas region of Carolina, with Soto in command. Gotay testified at trial that the purpose of preventive rounds was “to go to all of the places where drugs was [sic] being trafficked, and if you saw that there were [sic] drug trafficking going on you would try to intervene on that.” The preventive rounds on this night were uneventful until 11:30 p.m. At that time, the unmarked police car containing Soto, Gotay, Velazquez and Moreno came upon Gutierrez’ vehicle. The officers, who were in plain clothes, quickly exited their vehicle and approached the car with guns drawn. Upon seeing unidentified men brandishing firearms approaching his car, Gutierrez hastily started his engine and began to drive away. Without warning, the officers began to fire at the car. One bullet struck Gutierrez in the back, causing him to lose control of the vehicle. The car went off the road and landed on its side in a ditch. The officers caught up with the car and set it upright. They then identified themselves as police officers and transported Gutierrez to a hospital. Gutierrez received extensive and permanent injuries as a result of his gunshot wound. The bullet damaged his spinal cord, causing him to become a paraplegic— permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Plaintiff sued the four officers who were at the scene under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for depriving him of his constitutional right of liberty without due process of law. He also brought suit against Domingo Alvarez, the Director of the Carolina Drugs and Narcotics Division and Desiderio Cartage-na, the Police Superintendent, alleging that their supervisory actions and omissions caused or contributed to cause his injury. After a twelve-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The jury awarded him $4.5 million in compensatory damages, jointly and severally against all defendants. Punitive damages were also awarded against the individual defendants in the following amounts: Cart-agena — $150,000; Alvarez — $225,000; Soto —$200,000; Velazquez — $30,000; Gotay— $25,000. Defendants filed a number of post-verdict motions, all of which were denied by the trial court. Defendants have raised the following issues on appeal: (1) was the evidence sufficient to support the jury’s finding of liability under § 1983; (2) was the district court’s instruction concerning the standard for imposing liability on both the supervisors and the officers consistent with applicable law; (3) did the district court err in denying defendants’ motion for a mistrial because of prejudicial pretrial and trial publicity; (4) did the admission of past complaints against Officer Soto constitute reversible error; (5) did the district court’s refusal to permit Soto to testify at trial due to his earlier assertion of his fifth amendment privilege against testifying constitute an abuse. of discretion; (6) should the jury award have been reduced or a new trial been granted on the ground that the award was excessive; and (7) was there a basis for the jury’s imposition of punitive damages. II. LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983: SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE As the defendants’ arguments turn on somewhat different factual and legal issues, we deal with them in two groups: the individual officers who were at the scene and their supervisors. A. Individual Officers’ Liability Soto and Gotay moved for directed verdicts at trial arguing that on the evidence presented, the jury could not have reasonably imposed liability under § 1983. While they did not move for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, they did make a post-verdict motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict was contrary to the law and against the weight of the evidence. Gotay made a separate motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was the cause of plaintiff's injuries. We note first the standards of review that guide our inquiry. In reviewing the denial of a motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict “ ‘we must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and determine whether there are facts and inferences reasonably drawn from those facts which lead to but one conclusion— that there is a total failure of evidence to prove plaintiff’s case.’ ” Mayo v. Schooner Capital Corp., 825 F.2d 566, 568 (1st Cir.1987) (quoting Fact Concerts, Inc. v. City of Newport, 626 F.2d 1060, 1064 (1st Cir.1980), vacated on other grounds, 453 U.S. 247, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981)); see MacQuarrie v. Howard Johnson Co., 871 F.2d 126, 128 (1st Cir., June 2, 1989); Gonzalez-Marin v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society, 845 F.2d 1140, 1144 (1st Cir.1988); Robinson v. Watts Detective Agency, 685 F.2d 729, 732 (1st Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105, 103 S.Ct. 728, 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983). As to the denial of a new'trial motion: [W]e will reverse a judge’s decision not to grant a motion for a new trial ‘only if the verdict is so seriously mistaken, so clearly against the law or the evidence, as to constitute a miscarriage of justice.’ Levesque v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 832 F.2d 702, 703 (1st Cir.1987); see Mayo v. Schooner Capital Corp., 825 F.2d 566, 570 (1st Cir.1987). This strict standard of review is especially appropriate if the motion for new trial is based on a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Wells [Real Estate v. Greater Lowell Board of Realtors], 850 F.2d [803] at 811 [(1st Cir.1988) ]. Thus, our review is limited solely to determining if the court abused its discretion in making this decision. Free man v. Package Machinery Co., 865 F.2d 1331, 1334 (1st Cir.1988); Mayo, 825 F.2d at 568. MacQuarrie, at 131. The standard in reviewing a denial of a Rule 59(e) motion is, likewise, one of abuse of discretion. See Earnhardt v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 744 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1984); Thomas v. Farmville Manufacturing Co., 705 F.2d 1307, 1307-08 (11th Cir.1983). In assessing the imposition of liability under § 1983, we must first ask “(1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under the color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1912, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 106 S.Ct. 668, 88 L.Ed.2d 677 (1986). There are two aspects to the second inquiry: “(1) there must have been a deprivation of federally protected rights, privileges or immunities, and (2) the conduct complained of must have been causally connected to the deprivation.” Woodley v. Town of Nantucket, 645 F.Supp. 1365, 1369 n. 4 (D.Mass.1986) (emphasis added). Since the defendants do not deny that they were acting under color of Commonwealth law, our inquiry focuses on whether there was sufficient evidence to establish both a constitutional deprivation and a causal connection between the defendants’ conduct and the deprivation. We have recently held that government officials may be held liable under § 1983 “for a deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process if their conduct reflects a reckless or callous indifference to an individual’s rights.” Germany v. Vance, 868 F.2d 9, 18 (1st Cir.1989); see also infra p. 562 (comparing standards of reckless indifference and deliberate indifference). Soto and Gotay assert that no evidence was presented that might reasonably establish that they had acted with reckless or callous indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. We disagree. Pedro Soto The jury could have found the following facts and drawn the following inferences against defendant Soto: —He was in charge of the preventive round on December 9, 1983. —The preventive rounds have no set guidelines and proceed as the officer in charge orders. That officer has direct responsibility for what occurs on the round. —As the officer in charge, Soto would have determined the area of the patrol, against whom it would act, and how that action was to take place. —On the night in question, Soto drove the police vehicle up to plaintiff’s car. —Under his direction, he and the other officers exited their vehicle with guns drawn. —They proceeded to approach the Gutierrez vehicle without identifying themselves as police officers. —As plaintiff began to drive away, he heard a number of shots. One shot was louder than all of the others. Soto was issued a shotgun for the patrol, the other officers carried revolvers. —Officers under Soto’s command discharged their weapons at plaintiff and Oquendo. —At least five shots were fired before plaintiff was hit and his car went off the road. —Since Soto was in command, the use of weapons by the officers involved was at his direction or, at least, was tacitly authorized by him. These facts were more than sufficient to establish that Soto’s actions amounted to a reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of Gutierrez. Edwin Gotay Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the liability of defendant Gotay is a closer question. He was not in charge of the patrol and asserts that he was asleep in the police car when plaintiff was shot. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of liability against him. Although the evidence against Gotay was slim, we deem it sufficient. Based on the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the jury could have found that Gotay exited the vehicle along with the other three officers with his gun drawn and was thus an active participant in the event that caused plaintiffs injuries. The following evidence supports such a finding: —On cross-examination, Margarita Oquendo testified that all of the officers exited the vehicle. Q: Will you please describe the locations of the agents? A: The driver was in the front, Pedro Soto, another person was off to his right. The other two were in the front seat — excuse me in the back seat. . Q: Which one of the officers went out of the car, if you can recall? A: Could you repeat the question, please? Q: Which one of the agents dismounted from the car? A: All of them got out of the car. —On direct examination Oquendo testified that the officers carried guns and pointed them at Gutierrez and her. —Following the shooting and the righting of Gutierrez’ overturned vehicle, the first officer Oquendo saw was Gotay, who was standing at the window of the car. Since Oquendo testified that it took “just seconds” for the officers to arrive at her vehicle, Gotay’s presence there raises an inference that he was not asleep during the shooting. If Gotay had been asleep in the car, it would have been difficult for him to be at the car window “just seconds” after the shooting. Given this evidence, we cannot say that no reasonable jury could have found that Gotay’s actions evidenced a reckless or callous indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The jury was privileged to make such a finding, and it did so. Both Gotay and Soto assert that the evidence did not establish that their actions were the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. They allege that since the bullet that entered plaintiff’s body came from Officer Moreno’s revolver, his action must be seen as an intervening, superceding cause of the constitutional deprivation. This argument may be disposed of quickly. Section 1983 imposes liability upon those who “subject[ ] or cause[ ] to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws...” This circuit has expanded upon the express words of the statute and stated that: A person “subjects” another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an affirmative act which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made. [Citation omitted.] Moreover, personal participation is not the only predicate for section 1983 liability. Anyone who “causes” any citizen to be subjected to a constitutional deprivation is also liable. The requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct personal participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury. Springer v. Seaman, 821 F.2d 871, 879 (1st Cir.1987) (quoting Soto v. City of Sacramento, 567 F.Supp. 662, 673-74 (E.D.Cal.1983) (citations omitted) and Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir.1978)). The Springer court also noted that inquiries into causation under § 1983 are cab-ined within common law tort principles. See id. at 876-79; see also Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 305-06, 106 S.Ct. 2537, 2541-42, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986) (noting that common-law principles control the issuance of damages under § 1983). We have no difficulty concluding that there was a firm evidentiary basis for finding that the actions of Soto and Gotay caused plaintiffs injuries. Soto was the man in charge. He directed and participated in the acts that led to the shooting. The jury could also have found that Gotay was a participant in those acts. Gotay exited the car with his gun drawn and moved toward the Gutierrez’ vehicle along with the other officers. Under such a factual scenario, the actions of all four of the officers who participated in the intervention could be deemed to be proximate causes of plaintiff’s injuries. Cf. Melear v. Spears, 862 F.2d 1177, 1186 (5th Cir.1989) (police officer liable under § 1983 where he guarded a door during the commission of an illegal search by other officers). Nor does Moreno’s conduct constitute a superseding intervening cause that would relieve Soto and Gotay from liability. We have recently addressed the concept of superseding causes. In Marshall v. Perez Arzuaga, 828 F.2d 845, 848 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 1027, 98 L.Ed.2d 991 (1988), we stated that an actor is responsible for those consequences attributable to reasonably foreseeable intervening forces, including the acts of third parties. See Widow of Andino, 93 P.R.R. at 178 (defining “intervening cause” as a cause of an injury that “comes into active operation in producing the result after the actor’s negligent act or omission has occurred”). A negligent defendant will not be relieved of liability by an intervening cause that was reasonably foreseeable, even if the intervening force may have “directly” caused the harm. Id. An “unforeseen and abnormal” intervention, on the other hand, “breaks the chain of causality,” thus shielding the defendant from liability. Id. See Springer, 821 F.2d at 876-77 (similarly describing intervening causes in tort law). The question in the case at bar is whether Moreno’s firing of his weapon — the direct cause of plaintiff’s injuries — was a type of harm that Soto and Gotay could reasonably have foreseen. We believe that it was. It was eminently foreseeable that an encounter with a civilian by four policemen with weapons drawn and ready to fire might result in a discharge of the firearms and an injury to the civilian. No matter whose bullet ultimately inflicted plaintiff’s injury, the deprivation of Gutierrez’ constitutional rights was the result of a team effort. The officers exited their vehicle with guns drawn. As plaintiff pulled away a number of shots, “around five or six” according to Gutierrez, were fired. That only one bullet found its mark was fortuitous, not exculpatory. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to hold Soto and Gotay liable under § 1983. B. Supervisory Liability The Director of the Carolina Division, Domingo Alvarez, and the Superintendent of the Police Department of Puerto Rico, Desiderio Cartagena, argue that the court erred in denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of supervisory liability under § 1983. Our inquiry is governed by the same principles as those used in reviewing a denial of a motion for directed verdict. We discern no error in the judge’s ruling. We have addressed the limits of supervisory liability under § 1983 in the past. We note first that liability may not be predicated upon a theory of respondeat superior. See Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881, 901-02 (1st Cir.1988); Guzman v. City of Cranston, 812 F.2d 24, 26 (1st Cir.1987); Woodley v. Town of Nantucket, 645 F.Supp. at 1372. A supervisor “may be found liable only on the basis of her own acts or omissions.” Figueroa v. Aponte-Roque, 864 F.2d 947, 953 (1st Cir.1989); see Guzman, 812 F.2d at 26. It must be shown that the supervisor’s conduct or inaction amounted to a reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of others. See Germany, 868 F.2d at 17-18. Finally, there must be “an ‘affirmative link’ between the street-level misconduct and the action, or inaction, of supervisory officials.” Woodley, 645 F.Supp. at 1372 (quoting Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371, 96 S.Ct. 598, 604, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976)); see Lipsett, 864 F.2d at 902. Our earlier cases on supervisory liability have stated that a plaintiff must establish that the supervisor’s conduct constituted “gross negligence amounting to deliberate indifference.” See Lipsett, 864 F.2d at 902; Guzman, 812 F.2d at 26; Voutour v. Vitale, 761 F.2d 812, 820 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct. 879, 88 L.Ed.2d 916 (1986). We believe there is no difference of moment between that standard and one of reckless or callous indifference. See City of Springfield v. Kibbe, 480 U.S. 257, 268-69, 107 S.Ct. 1114, 1120-21, 94 L.Ed.2d 293 (1987) (O’Connor, J. dissenting from dismissal of writ of certiorari) (stating that deliberate indifference or reckless disregard is necessary to establish municipal liability under § 1983); Clipper v. Tacoma Park, 876 F.2d 17, 20 (4th Cir.1989) (same); Cortes-Quinones v. Jimenez-Nettleship, 842 F.2d 556, 558 (1st Cir.) (discussing different definitions of deliberate indifference), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 68, 102 L.Ed.2d 45 (1988); Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1390 (4th Cir.1987); Williams v. City of Boston, 784 F.2d 430, 434-35 (1st Cir.1986) (using standards of reckless disregard and deliberate indifference interchangeably); Martin v. White, 742 F.2d 469, 474 (8th Cir.1984) (equating the two standards); Rondon Pinto v. Jimenez-Nettleship, 737 F.2d 130, 132 (1st Cir.1984) (using both standards as one); Layne v. Vinzant, 657 F.2d 468, 471, 474 (1st Cir.1981) (same); cf. Germany, 868 F.2d at 18 & n. 10 (noting distinction between gross negligence — standing alone — and recklessness). We see no reason to differentiate in this context between these standards. We hold that indifference that rises to the level of being deliberate, reckless or callous, suffices to establish liability under § 1983. Domingo Alvarez The plaintiff provided more than sufficient evidence for the jury to impose § 1983 liability upon Domingo Alvarez. Plaintiff established that: —On December 9, 1983, Alvarez was Director of the Drugs and Narcotics Division for the Area of Carolina of the Police Department of Puerto Rico. —Prior to this time Alvarez had supervised defendant Soto at the Metropolitan Drugs and Narcotics Division. —Alvarez testified that during his time at the Metropolitan Drugs and Narcotics Division he was aware that Soto had been the subject of a number of citizen complaints charging him with mistreatment. —Alvarez was also aware that Soto had a reputation “for having a violent character in mistreating citizens.” —Based on these facts, Alvarez admitted that he was concerned about Soto’s character and its effect upon him as a police officer. —When Soto was being transferred to the Carolina Division, Alvarez expressed his concern about Soto’s character to his captain. He suggested that a different assignment might be in order for Soto. He had also spoken with investigators from the Bureau of Investigations and Disciplinary Matters regarding the complaints against Soto. —Alvarez admitted that he was aware that Soto had been the subject of ten citizen complaints charging abuse during his tenure with the Carolina Division. Soto and another officer in the department had the greatest number of civilian complaints lodged against them. —Alvarez also knew that Soto had been suspended for five days in July, 1983. On that date Soto, as a round supervisor, stood by and pointed a gun while those under his command beat up a civilian doctor. Alvarez was on duty the day of that assault. —Soto and Alvarez were friends and certain testimony indicated that Alvarez was less strict with him than with other officers. —When Soto was moved to the Carolina Division, Alvarez was concerned for the safety of both the citizens and his own men. He feared that in response to Soto’s actions a civilian riot might develop, which would threaten the safety of the officers under his command. —As Director of the Carolina Division, Alvarez had the authority to assign Soto to a desk job. On the one or two occasions this was done, Soto demanded he be returned to the street. Alvarez complied. —Although Alvarez testified that he wanted Soto to be transferred, Alvarez’ immediate supervisor, Nelson Segarra, stated that Alvarez never filed a request for Soto to be transferred. —Alvarez never initiated a complaint against Soto until after the Gutierrez shooting. —Alvarez never requested that Soto be given a psychiatric evaluation. —Despite all of his concerns and the large number of complaints against Soto, Alvarez continued to send him out to command as a'round supervisor. —On December 9, 1983, Alvarez assigned Soto to supervise the preventive round during which plaintiff sustained his injuries. Of the other officers assigned to the round, Moreno had a number of civilian complaints filed against him and Gotay was just returning to the force following a leave of absence to recuperate from an injury. —As Director of the Carolina Division, it was Alvarez’ duty to evaluate the police officers under his command every six months. Two of the categories evaluated are “self-control” and “relations with the community.” He had to rate the performance of the officers on a scale from one to five, with a score of four or five indicating above average achievement. —Alvarez evaluated Soto five times between 1981 and 1983. He never gave Soto less than a ranking of four in the categories of relations with the community and self-control. —In his final evaluation of Soto, in July, 1983, Alvarez gave Soto fours in the relations with the community and self-control categories. This evaluation was made despite Alvarez’ knowledge that three complaints had been filed against Soto in the preceding six months and that Soto had held a gun on a civilian doctor while other officers assaulted him. Alvarez was also aware of a disciplinary suspension instituted against Soto for that incident. In the same evaluation Alvarez commended Soto for his performance as round supervisor. —Plaintiff’s expert in police practice, procedure administration and discipline, Lou Reiter, testified that, given Soto’s conduct, Alvarez should have taken the following basic steps regarding Soto: (1) lowered his evaluation scores to the unsatisfactory level to signal to Soto that his behavior needed improvement; (2) personally observed Soto in the field to determine how he dealt with civilians; (3) put in a formal, written request to his superiors requesting a transfer for Soto out of the Carolina Division; (4) have Soto undergo a psychiatric examination; (5) assigned Soto to special training classes that would have helped him better his relations with the community; (6) assigned Soto to be a “Reten,” i.e., an officer with a desk job; (7) started a file on Soto documenting past incidents of alleged misconduct and recording them in case future action was necessary; and (8) undertaken a personal review of Soto’s arrest files and included any improper or questionable activities in Soto’s file. —Reiter believed that it was foreseeable, in 1983, that Soto might commit further acts of violence against civilians. He testified that proper and immediate supervision and discipline of Soto would likely have remedied the problem or, at the least, have resulted in Soto’s dismissal from the force. —Based on a review of the pertinent facts, Reiter concluded that Alvarez’ supervision and discipline of Soto was totally deficient. Alvarez’ inaction concerning the Soto threat and his continued assignments of Soto as a round supervisor are a basis for finding that he possessed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of those with whom Soto would come into contact. The affirmative link between Alvarez’ conduct toward Soto and the shooting of Gutierrez is plain. With even the minimal amount of proper supervision and discipline it is unlikely that Soto would have been in command on December 9, 1983. Had Alvarez not been recklessly indifferent to his duties, the Soto problem would have been remedied well before that date. Desiderio Cartagena Cartagena maintains that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to impose liability upon him. Plaintiff argues that Cartagena is liable because: (1) he had knowledge of the numerous complaints against Soto yet took no action concerning them other than dismissing the charges; and (2) he employed a wholly inadequate and impotent disciplinary system that permitted officers like Soto to continue to employ their bullish methods without sanction. See, e.g., McClelland v. Facteau, 610 F.2d 693, 697 (10th Cir.1979) (noting similar grounds for supervisory liability under § 1983). We believe the evidence adduced by plaintiff was sufficient to sustain the jury’s imposition of liability upon Cartagena. The jury could have found the following: —On December 9, 1983, Cartagena was the Superintendent of the Police Department of Puerto Rico and had held that position since December 11, 1978. He retired from that post on December 30, 1983. —As Superintendent, he was responsible for establishing all policies and procedures of the Police Department. He had the authority to issue “General Orders,” which, along with the Personnel Regulations, served as the governing guidelines for the department. —He was ultimately responsible for the supervision of all of the officers under his command. It was his duty to ensure that the General Orders and the Personnel Regulations were carried out by the police force. —Cartagena was at the head of the department’s disciplinary system. Every complaint filed against an officer went to Cartagena for disposition. He made the final decision, based upon the department’s investigation of the matter, as to whether an officer was guilty or not guilty of misconduct. —He was the only one with the authority to suspend, fire, or otherwise discipline a police officer. Any decision to sanction or not to sanction a particular officer was made by Cartagena. —Under the rules and regulations governing the police disciplinary system, when a complaint was filed against an individual officer, the Bureau of Inspection and Disciplinary Matters would investigate. After a series of reviews, the Bureau would make a recommendation concerning the matter and forward it to the Legal Division. The Director of the Legal Division would then examine all of the materials related to the case and make a final recommendation to the Superintendent. —Cartagena testified that that recommendation accompanied the file on the case when it came to his desk. —He stated that he did not read the entire record in the majority of cases and, instead, relied upon the recommendation of the Legal Division. In close cases, he asked the Director of the Legal Division, who stood by as he went over the complaints, to fill in the background of the cases. When asked how he knew whether it was “a close case,” Cartagena stated that he relied on the Director to orient him to the cases. The jury could infer from this that Cartagena obtained at least the basic factual background on each complaint either from a discussion with the Director or from reading the file itself. —Soto was the subject of at least 13 separate civilian complaints between 1980 and December 30, 1983. —Cartagena personally signed letters dismissing the charges against Soto in twelve of the thirteen complaint cases. —In 1983, the year Gutierrez was shot, Soto was the subject of five other complaints. On a single day, July 21, 1983, Cartagena dismissed one complaint against Soto and reaffirmed a five-day suspension that had initially been ordered against him on May 10, • 1983 concerning a different matter. —Cartagena testified that the volume and frequency of the complaints against Soto did not alarm him. He believed the complaints did not evidence any pattern of improper behavior. Cartagena did not order any special investigation of Soto nor did he personally attempt to check up on Soto. —Despite his power to do so, Cartagena emphatically refused to consider an officer’s past history of complaints when reviewing that officer’s conduct. Indeed, the files which were brought to him for disposition did not even include the officer’s prior history of complaints. —The failure to consider officers’ past histories when evaluating complaints made it very difficult to identify a pattern of misbehavior or misconduct. —Reiter, plaintiff’s expert on police matters, testified as to the need for considering past histories in assessing a particular officer’s actions. He stated that the number of complaints levied against Soto alone should have signalled that he needed immediate attention. Jorge Collazo, Cartagena’s successor as Superintendent, and Captain Julian Ortiz, Director of the Administrative Investigations Division for the Area of San Juan, agreed that the number of complaints against Soto was quite unusual and should have put his superiors on notice that some form of remedial action was necessary. —Reiter maintained that there were other glaring inadequacies in the disciplinary system employed by Cartagena: 1. One of the most serious deficiencies, Reiter felt, was the provision that allowed officers who were the subject of an internal investigation to refuse to testify or give a statement to the investigating officers. Such a rule is “a really serious handicap” to an investigation of misconduct; it “cuts off one of your main sources of investigation ... the officer that was involved.” By invoking such a rule an officer could easily block the department from getting to the bottom of the matter. Soto asserted this privilege in a number of the department’s investigations of him. 2. The investigations of complaints against officers required witnesses to come to the station house to give sworn written statements. Reiter professed that the effect of such a requirement was to “frighten[ ] most of the average citizen[s], particularly minorities....” By its formality, the system discouraged people from coming forward with information. This hampered the department’s ability to discover the truth surrounding alleged incidents of misconduct. As early as 1974, the Police Task Force Report, of which Reiter was a contributing author, denounced the requirement of taking sworn written statements at the investigation stage of a complaint action. 3. Under this disciplinary structure, when a citizen withdrew his complaint, the internal investigation was concluded. Reiter testified that that practice encouraged the intimidation of complainants by police officers and may have been too cumbersome to be effective. Six of the civilian complaints against Soto were withdrawn by the complainants. 4. The disciplinary system’s sanctions were unduly limited. Reiter stated that, as written, the system did not allow an officer to be given additional remedial training or psychological exams as a response to findings of misconduct. Reiter believed that to function efficiently a disciplinary system must have at its disposal both remedial measures, which are designed to retrain an officer, and punishments, which are designed to sanction his or her conduct. 5. The failure to involve immediate supervisors in the disciplinary process was another flaw in the system. An officer’s immediate supervisor is the department official closest to the situation. He has the most knowledge of the officer’s temperament, strengths and weaknesses. His recommendation as to what type of sanction would be most effective in a particular officer’s case is a valuable component of a proper disciplinary system. 6. Reiter next testified that: There was no indication[ ], [in the disciplinary organization], that there was a system that would identify officers who had lots of complaints, whether they were founded or not. The reason you want to do that is because you want to identify those policemen, even if the complaint is unfounded, you want to say why is it that one officer gets more complaints than other officers, and then look at that person. Maybe he needs counsel-ling, maybe he needs more supervision, maybe he needs — maybe he’s burned out. ****** Most officers go through their entire career with no complaints or maybe just a handful. Most officers will go through twenty-five, twenty, twenty-five, thirty years with no complaints. And so, if one officer has ten, fifteen, twenty, forty, I think one instance was forty, forty-nine complaints, something is wrong. That person is doing it different. And that’s what the red flag is, to alert you even if there [sic] unfounded. Something he’s doing is generating more complaints than another person and it’s something that the supervisor, sergeants or the lieutenant needs to look at and that person needs to be told that you got a problem with one of your officers. 7.Reiter concluded that the disciplinary system was just going through the procedural motions without the objective of discovering the truth. Based upon the foregoing evidence, the jury was justified in holding Cartagena liable under § 1983. It could be found that Cartagena’s conduct reflected a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of the citizens of Puerto Rico. Both his failure to identify and take remedial action concerning Soto and his employment of a disciplinary system that was grossly deficient in a number of significant areas made it highly likely that the police officers under his command would engage in conduct that would deprive the citizens of Puerto Rico of their constitutional rights. Had a proper disciplinary system been in place, Soto would have been identified as an officer prone to misconduct. A number of disciplinary steps might have been taken against him in order either to change his approach to his duties or to dismiss him from the force. There was a plethora of evidence that Cartagena utilized a bankrupt disciplinary system, and took virtually no action concerning Soto; he was thus affirmatively linked to the shooting of Gutierrez. III. THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS Cartagena and Alvarez argue that the trial judge’s charge was erroneous because it failed to instruct that to hold them liable under § 1983, plaintiff must prove that this violation was not an isolated occurrence but was part of a pattern of continual violations, which were condoned by the Director and the Superintendent. Only in this way, they maintain, can plaintiff establish that a policy or custom of inadequate supervision and poor discipline existed on their watch. See City of Canton v. Harris, — U.S.-, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 1203, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989); City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 108 S.Ct. 915, 923-24, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988); Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816-18, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 2432-33, 85 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985) (plurality opinion of Rehnquist, J.); Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694-95, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2037-38, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). This argument is meritless. Defendants have confused the standard for imposing liability upon a municipality, with that for imposing liability upon individual actors. Compare Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 694, 98 S.Ct. at 2036, 2037, and Bordanaro v. McLeod, 871 F.2d 1151, 1154-56, 1158-59 (1st Cir.1989) with Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 334-35, 106 S.Ct. 662, 666-67, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986) and Germany, 868 F.2d at 17-18; see generally Annotation, Liability of Supervisory Officials and Governmental Entities for Having Failed to Adequately Train, Supervise, or Control Individual Peace Officers Who Violate Plaintiff's Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1982 70 A.L.R.Fed. 17 (1984) (collecting and comparing cases concerning subject matter of title). As we have recently stated, “government officials may be held liable for a deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process if their conduct reflects a reckless or callous indifference to an individual’s rights. See, e.g., Maldonado Santiago v. Velazquez Garcia, 821 F.2d 822, 831 (1st Cir.1987); Clark v. Taylor, 710 F.2d 4, 9 (1st Cir.1983).” Germany v. Vance, 868 F.2d at 17-18. An inquiry into whether there has been a pattern of past abuses or official condonation thereof is only required when a plaintiff has sued a municipality. Where, as in the case at bar, the plaintiff has brought suit against the defendants as individuals, the standard set forth in Germany v. Vance applies: plaintiff need only establish that the defendants’ acts or omissions were the product of reckless or callous indifference to his constitutional rights and that they, in fact, caused his constitutional deprivations. 868 F.2d at 17-18. Though not expressly argued by the defendants, we note that the judge’s charge did not instruct the jury on the reckless or callous indifference standard. Instead, the judge’s charge permitted the jury to impose liability against the defendants if it found that they had been “grossly negligent.” He defined that standard as follows: Gross negligence is a form of negligence. It is based on a failure to exercise care. To find that there was gross negligence on the part of the defendants Domingo Alvarez and Desiderio Cartage-na you do not have to find that they acted with intent to violate plaintiff's rights. Gross negligence differs from ordinary negligence only in degree and not in kind. It falls short of reckless disregard or consequences. Gross negligence signifies more than an ordinary inadvertence or inattention that consequences of one’s act or omissions, but less than a conscious indifference to the consequence. It implies a want of the ordinary standard of care but does not require an intent to do harm. This instruction is at odds with the reckless or callous indifference standard established by Germany v. Vance, 868 F.2d at 17-18. And while “ ‘what terms like ... reckless or gross negligence mean’ has ‘left the finest scholars puzzled,’ ” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. at 334, 106 S.Ct. at 667 (quoting Reply Brief for Petitioner 9), the district court’s definition of gross negligence imposed a lesser standard than recklessness. See Germany, 868 F.2d at 18 & n. 10. Defendants failed to object specifically, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 51, to the district court’s use of a gross negligence standard for liability. The only objection that comes close states: “We object to the instruction of gross negligence, we submitted an instruction on gross negligence which we understand defines the concept in a much better fashion and more instructive to the jury rather than the one submitted by plaintiff.” Thus, defendants acquiesced in the gross negligence standard but preferred a different definition of that term. “An exception on one ground cannot serve as the basis for another, on a different ground, on appeal.” Wells Real Estate, Inc. v. Greater Lowell Bd. of Realtors, 850 F.2d 803, 809 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 109 S.Ct. 392, 102 L.Ed.2d 381 (1988) (citing Gillentine v. McKeand, 426 F.2d 717, 723 n. 19 (1st Cir.1970)); City of Springfield v. Kibbe, 480 U.S. 257, 258-60, 107 S.Ct. 1114, 1115-16, 94 L.Ed.2d 293 (1987) (where defendants never requested a standard higher than gross negligence and had proffered a gross negligence instruction of their own, the Supreme Court declined to review any subsequent argument for a higher standard of liability). Absent a proper objection under Rule 51, we may reverse only upon a finding of plain error. See Smith v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 877 F.2d 1106, 1110 (1st Cir.1989); Almonte v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., 787 F.2d 763, 769 (1st Cir.1986); McKinnon v. Skil Corp. 638 F.2d 270, 273 n. 2 (1st Cir.1981). We are also guided by the teaching that: the plain error rule “should be applied sparingly and only in exceptional cases or under peculiar circumstances to prevent a clear miscarriage of justice.” Nimrod v. Sylvester, 369 F.2d 870, 873 (1st Cir.1966). We have adopted the standard for plain error in the Rule 51 context expressed by professors Wright and Miller: “ ‘If there is to be a plain error exception to Rule 51 at all, it should be confined to the exceptional case where the error has seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Morris v. Travisono, 528 F.2d 856, 859 (1st Cir.1976) (quoting 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 2558, at 675 (1971)). Wells Real Estate, Inc., 850 F.2d at 809. We have reviewed the entire record in light of this standard and cannot say that the judge’s utilization of the gross negligence standard constitutes plain error. What saves the judge’s charge is his instruction on, and the jury’s imposition of, punitive damages. The judge below gave the following instruction on punitive damages. If you should find from the preponderance of the evidence in this case that the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict for actual or compensatory damages; and should further find that the act or omission of the defendant, which proximately caused actual injury or damage to the plaintiff, was maliciously or wantonly, or oppressively done then you may add to the award of actual damages such amount as you shall agree to be proper as punitive damages. An act or failure to act is maliciously done if prompted or accompanied by . ill will, spite or grudge, either toward the injured person individually, or towards all persons in one or more groups or categories of which the injured person is a member. An act or failure to act is wantonly done if done in reckless or callous disregard of, or indifference to the rights of one or more persons including the injured person. An act or failure to act is oppressively done if done in a way or manner which injures or damages, or otherwise violates the rights of another person with unnecessary harshness or severity, as by misuse or abuse or authority or power, or by taking advantage of some weakness, disability of another person. * * * * He * If you decide to award any punitive damages it should be based on whether you find that the defendants acted willfully, deliberately, maliciously or with reckless disregard of the plaintiffs constitutional rights. If you find that they have done one or more of those things then you may award punitive damages which I’ve already indicated to you. (Emphasis added). The standard set forth in the punitive damage instruction is as strict, if not stricter, than that required by Germany v. Vance to impose liability under § 1983. Since the jury returned punitive damage awards against all defendants, it follows logically that had it been correctly instructed on § 1983 liability, the jury’s verdict would have remained the same. Given that finding, the error in the charge is not one that has resulted in “a clear miscarriage of justice,” Almonte, 787 F.2d at 769, nor has it “seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2558 at 675 (1971); see also Wells Real Estate, Inc., 850 F.2d at 809 (“[W]e have continued to acknowledge the plain error rule without, to our knowledge, ever using it to upset a verdict.”). There was no plain error here. Cartagena and Alvarez also fault the jury instructions for not making clear “the issue of proximate cause, specifically that an ‘affirmative link’ must be established between Cartagena and Alvarez’ action and the unconstitutional activity of the police officers.” Because defendants failed to make this objection at trial, we, again, review only for plain error. The judge gave the following charge regarding causation: An injury or damage is proximately caused by an act or failure to act whenever it appears from the evidence in the case that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage, and that the [injjury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonable probable consequence of the act or omission. It is true that this instruction does not use the term “affirmative link,” which has been endorsed by the Supreme Court and employed by this circuit. See Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371, 96 S.Ct. at 604; Lipsett, 864 F.2d at 902. In Kibbe v. City of Springfield, 777 F.2d 801 (1st Cir.1985), cert. granted, 475 U.S. 1064, 106 S.Ct. 1374, 89 L.Ed.2d 600 (1986), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 480 U.S. 257, 107 S.Ct. 1114, 94 L.Ed.2d 293 (1987), the defendants, like those here, argued that the trial judge’s failure to use the words “affirmative link” made his charge fatally flawed. We disagreed and stated that “[a] defendant is not entitled to any specific words of instruction, but only to instructions that properly convey the applicable law of the ease.” Kibbe, 777 F.2d at 810 (citing 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2556 (1971)); see Bordanaro v. McLeod, 871 F.2d at 1165-66. Although Kibbe concerned causation in the municipal liability context, its teaching is equally apt in the case at bar. Other decisions of this circuit as well have not mandated that the term “affirmative link” must be used. See Guzman, 812 F.2d at 26; Voutour, 761 F.2d at 820. The district judge informed the jury that there needed to be a causal connection between the acts or omissions of the supervisors and the unconstitutional activities of the officers. He stated that the acts or omissions of the supervisors must have “played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage, and that the [injjury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonable probable consequence of the act or omission.” We believe this language accurately defines the causation element necessary to establish supervisory liability under § 1983. There was no error, much less plain error, in this instruction. IV. PUBLICITY AND JUROR BIAS Defendants Cartagena and Alvarez claim that the district court erred in denying their motions for mistrial based upon the prejudicial effect pretrial and trial publicity had upon the jury. Specifically, they assert that the jury was tainted by television and newspaper stories that: (1) disclosed a prior settlement that had been reached between Margarita Oquendo and the Justice Department of Puerto Rico; and (2) revealed that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico would indemnify Cartagena and Alvarez from any damages awarded against them and referred to the Commonwealth as the “deep pocket.” As stated in their written motion requesting mistrial, this claim is based on the seventh amendment right to a civil trial by an impartial jury- In reviewing the district court rulings, we keep in mind that “[mjotions for mistrials are directed primarily to the discretion of the trial court, United States v. Pappas, 611 F.2d 399, 406 (1st Cir.1979), and ‘will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion,’ id. at 406, citing United States v. Sclamo, 578 F.2d 888, 891 (1st Cir.1978).” United States v. Chamorro, 687 F.2d 1, 6 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1043, 103 S.Ct. 462, 74 L.Ed.2d 613 (1982). We will rarely find an abuse of discretion where the district court has “undertake[n] an adequate inquiry into whether the alleged tainting incident occurred and whether it was prejudicial.” United States v. Corbin, 590 F.2d 398, 400 (1st Cir.1979) (citing Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954) and collected First Circuit cases); see also United States v. Moreno Morales, 815 F.2d 725, 733 (1st Cir.) (“The trial court’s determination as to the impartiality of jurors may be set aside only for manifest error.”), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 966, 108 S.Ct. 458, 98 L.Ed.2d 397 (1987). After reviewing the record, we are convinced that the district court was vigilant in guarding against the improper effects of trial publicity. The trial judge questioned the jurors on several occasions to discover if any of them were aware of or tainted by publicity discussing the trial. In the initial polling of the prospective jurors on February 29, 1988 the judge queried: Do you know anything about the facts of this case or have you heard, or read anything about this case from any source? Do you have any reasons which could affect your impartial consideration of the case to be presented to you as a juror? None of the prospective jurors admitted to knowledge of the case or to an inability to be impartial. After this first polling, counsel for defendants claimed that publicity concerning settlement of Margarita Oquendo’s action would make it impossible to find an impartial jury. Because of potential prejudice from the jury’s knowledge of the settlement between her and the Department of Justice of Puerto Rico, the judge questioned the jury panel more specifically: I have a question here. Have any of you here today read an article that appeared in El Vocero in today’s edition on page 13 where it says “Ante De La Corte Federal”? One prospective juror — who was later excluded from the petit jury — admitted to having read the headline but not the article itself. The judge admonished all of the prospective jurors that “[i]f during the course of this trial there is an article that appears in the newspaper or on television or on the radio that has anything to do with this case, turn it off. Turn it off.” After the petit jury was selected, the judge repeated this instruction: “As I mentioned previously to you, you should avoid reading any newspaper articles that might be published about the case and should also avoid seeing or hearing any television or radio comments about this trial.” On March 1, 1988, defendants made an oral motion for mistrial and a continuance, alleging that plaintiff and members of his family mentioned the Oquendo settlement in a press conference. As a result of this claim, the judge told plaintiff’s father, who was a member of the press, that if one of the jurors became biased as a result of publicity, he would have to grant a mistrial. In an in camera session, the judge then questioned each juror individually about whether they had read or heard anything about the case on radio or television. All answered in the negative. Another oral motion for mistrial was made on March 2, 1988. Defendants complained about a newspaper article that named the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a party in the lawsuit and suggested that the story was the result of plaintiffs father talking to the press. The judge again warned the parties about the specter of mistrial. On March 3, 1988, defendants again moved for mistrial because of publicity. As opposing counsel pointed out in response, however, the newspaper article that was the basis of the motion merely detailed the defendants’ complaints about publicity that were made in open court the day before. Nevertheless, the jurors were summoned individually to the judge’s chambers for questioning. This time, in addition to asking if the jurors had read or heard anything concerning the case, the judge also asked if they were making efforts to avoid publicity related to the case. Following the questioning, the judge said, “I think they’re making an effort, honestly.” A final oral motion for mistrial was made on March 10, 1988, on the basis of repeated reports in newspaper articles that any award against Cartagena and Alvarez would be paid out of public funds. The judge again questioned each juror individually as to what they had read, seen, or heard in the media; their responses, as before, were negative. The court then received the assurances of the jurors that they would base their decision only upon the evidence presented at trial in light of the jury instructions. None of the jurors admitted reading anything about the case in the newspapers, except for a lone juror who stated that he reads the headlines but then turns the page. It is significant that none of the headlines to the articles at issue refer in any way to the Oquendo settlement or to indemnification. The reading of a bare headline thus provides no basis for a claim of juror bias. We find that the actions of the court in response to defendants’ claim that publicity was tainting the impartiality of the jury constitute more than the “adequate inquiry” required by the case law. See Corbin, 590 F.2d at 400. The judge was conscientious in his efforts to resolve any doubts about whether the jury was being influenced by publicity. Each time defendants raised their concerns about the effects of publicity, the trial judge undertook a detailed, individual interrogation of each juror. He warned them to avoid contact with the media and was satisfied that they were honestly trying to comply. The district judge expressed confidence in the jurors’ impartiality and the record supports his judgment. The district court was well within its discretion in denying defendants’ motions for mistrial. V. THE ADMISSION OF SOTO’S COMPLAINT FILES Defendants next protest the admission into evidence of Plaintiff’s exhibit 25, which contained case files concerning past civilian complaints against defendant Soto. Defendants make the following arguments against its admissibility: (1) it constitutes a violation of Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)’s prohibition on the use of prior bad acts evidence; (2) the prejudicial impact of the files upon the jury substantially outweighed any probative value they may have possessed; and (3) the files contained inadmissible hearsay. We address each of these concerns. A. The Evidence As already discussed, Soto had been the subject of at least thirteen civilian complaints charging him with misconduct. In twelve of these cases, the charges were eventually dismissed. Plaintiff sought to introduce the case files of these complaints, which contained witness statements, internal reports, recommendations, and investigative findings, against Cartagena and Alvarez. It was plaintiffs theory that the files were relevant to prove: “(1) that his [Soto’s] supervisors knew or should have known that he had been the subject of multiple citizen abuse complaints; and (2) that Defendant Desiderio Cartagena’s system of discipline did not adequately address potential dangers such as that represented by police officers such as Pedro Soto.” Brief for Appellee at 41. The judge admitted the files into evidence and carefully instructed the jury during the trial and in his final charge that the case-file evidence could only be used for those two, limited purposes. B. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and 403 Defendants argue that the case-file evidence should have been excluded under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), which provides: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. They assert that the evidence was introduced for the improper purpose of tainting the jury against defendants based upon Soto’s complaint history and that its prejudicial impact substantially outweighed its probative value. We cannot agree. Our approach to the analysis of issues raised under Rule 404(b) is well established. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 1499-1501, 1502, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988) (discussing applications of Rule 404); United States v. Fields, 871 F.2d 188, 196 (1st Cir.1989). We must first ask whether the evidence of prior bad acts was introduced for a legitimate purpose. See Huddleston, 108 S.Ct. at 1499; United States v. Gonzalez-Sanchez, 825 F.2d 572, 579-80 (1st Cir.) (stating that evidence must have a “special relevance” other than proving propensity), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 989, 108 S.Ct. 510, 98 L.Ed.2d 508 (1987); United States v. Scelzo, 810 F.2d 2, 4 (1st Cir.1987). If it was introduced for a proper purpose, we next determine whether considerations of substantial prejudice require its suppression under Rule 403. United States v. Fields, 871 F.2d at 196; United States v. Flores Perez, 849 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1988); Scelzo, 810 F.2d at 4; see also 1 J. Wein-stein & M. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence ¶ 403[01] — [04] (1988); 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence ¶ 404[8] (1988). Both of these inquiries are governed by the abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Santiago Soto, 871 F.2d 200, 204 (1st Cir.1989); Fields, 871 F.2d at 196; United States v. Rubio-Estrada, 857 F.2d 845, 845-46 (1st Cir.1988). The complaint files were relevant to prove the supervisory liability of Cartagena and Alvarez. They were not introduced to show that based upon Soto’s past conduct it was likely that he participated in the Gutierrez shooting. The evidence was not used to prove conduct, period. As was repeatedly stressed by the district court, the e