preferred. See D.D.C. R. 405. Indeed, the courts have developed rules and presumptions that enable the most efficient use of limited judicial resources while at the same time protecting the various parties’ rights to have their claims and arguments heard and decided by an impartial decision-maker. Trial judges frequently receive extraneous information about parties appearing before them but are presumed to disregard it. See Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339, 347, 102 S.Ct. 460, 465, 70 L.Ed.2d 530 (1981). In the course of a trial, as well as at pre-trial suppression hearings or during discovery, a judge may inspect documents or evidence that go to the heart of a party’s case but are ultimately determined to be inadmissible. See United States v. Cowden, 545 F.2d 257, 265-66 (1st Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, a judge may have personal
holding that appellate court reviewing trial courts habeas corpus ruling must review record evidence in light most favorable to ruling and uphold ruling absent abuse of discretion holding that when defense counsel withdrew an objection to admission of evidence the defendant waived his right to a review of the courts ruling on appeal holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered recognizing that judges are necessarily exposed to matters outside the record in the course of ruling on the admission of evidence holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record