Court Opinion

ID: 9467960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:00:41.955761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:36.654836
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the Court’s holding in Section II. of the opinion that the defendant, Philadelphia Gear, did not breach express and implied warranties and, therefore, agree with the result reached by the Court. I am unable to agree, however, that the evidence in the current record overcomes the “presumption” or “specter” of “prejudice” described so clearly by the Court as arising from the law clerk’s unattended efforts to gather and report evidence about the machine to the District Court. Such a *425unilateral, irregular method of judicial investigation and decision — conducted at the direction of a court without satisfactory notice by a witness who then privately advised the court of his observations, all without cross-examination — turns the rules of evidence upside down and is clearly at odds with our adversary system of justice. A more forceful and conclusive showing is necessary to convince me that this kind of error had no prejudicial effect upon the trial and should, therefore, be disregarded.