If counsel intends to rely on a party's failure to disclose evidence obtained during trial as a basis for adverse credit submissions, counsel is obliged as a matter of fairness to cross-examine the party on that issue. A trial judge's adverse credit finding based on matters not put to a witness in cross-examination may constitute a denial of procedural fairness warranting a new trial. The dissent's view — that procedural fairness requires only a reasonable opportunity to present one's case, and that counsel's forensic decision not to recall a witness in the face of clear judicial concern does not ground a new trial — was not adopted by the majority.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.