was admitted, and thus there is no error to correct.” This position is without support in the law. No court has ever held that review is forestalled if a witness does not answer a question posed or answers that question with a response favorable to the objecting party. Although the government cites two cases to support this proposition, United States v. Innamorati, 996 F.2d 456 (1st Cir.1993) and United States v. Zaccaria, 240 F.3d 75 (1st Cir.2001), these cases simply stand for the proposition that under such circumstances, the harmless error analysis is likely to weigh in favor of the appellee. See Innamorati, 996 F.2d at 485 (noting that because the challenged questions were not answered, the prejudicial effect of the questions was lessened); see also Zaccaria, 240 F.3d at 82-83 (<HOLDING>). Even when a question elicits no answer or an
holding that objection was timely even though objection was not made until after question was answered holding that even if the district court erred in sustaining the objection the error was harmless because the witness answered the question in the negative and the court did not strike his answer holding that prejudice from a question that violated doyle was cured by immediately sustaining objection before the question was answered holding that the district courts error in exercising jurisdiction was harmless error because the court properly applied the relevant state law to the undisputed material facts and came up with the right answer holding that even if the district court had erred by not allowing the plaintiff leave to file a reply brief any error was harmless because it did not prejudice the plaintiffs rights