However, all of these instances occurred outside the presence of the jury. Because a “clear effect on the jury is required to reverse for comment by the trial judge,” we conclu on defense” may be available, we have cautioned that the defense would be extremely limited, only applicable under "extraordinary circumstances.” See Deleveaux, 205 F.3d at 1297 (agreeing with other circuits that such a defense may be available but only in extremely limited circumstances). While it is a question of first impression in this circuit, several of our sister circuits have considered the theory of "temporary innocent possession,” and the majority have declined to recognize it. Some circuits have expressly rejected the defense. See United States v. Johnson, 459 F.3d 990, 997-98 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Teemer, 394 F.3d 59, 62-65
holding that where the defendants expert described the product design using superlatives namely the safest design you could possibly put on the machine the plaintiff should have been permitted to impeach the expert by inquiring why the safest design possible was modified following the plaintiffs accident holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit a design defect products liability expert to submit an untimely addendum stating a new claim of failure to warn after defense expert refuted the basis of original design defect opinion holding that defendant could not assert statutory affirmative defense enacted three years after claim accrued because such would affect vested rights and substantive law holding that in the context of construction litigation regarding the alleged negligence of design professionals a tort action for negligent misrepresentation alleging damages based purely on economic loss is not available to a party in privity of contract with a design professional holding that such a defense would undermine the statutory design of  922g