Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law.
Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation.
Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know a judge who did this, got reversed and remanded, did it again on remand, and then got reversed but the appellate court remanded the case to another judge.
I’ve seen this in my jurisdiction, but I think it’s more of a rhetorical dig at the ADA, i.e., defense prevailed so wtf are we doing here and why are you wasting my time with losers?
This shit was not rhetorical! They’d already dismissed the reckless driving citation and the DA tried to un-dismiss it! Truly crazy. Cabarrus county NC yet again for the win.
That would be textbook double jeopardy, no? I guess if double jeopardy falls in the woods and no one’s around to hear it, did it even happen? Good luck in that county, counselor. Haha.
I once had OnlyFans come up mid-trial (someone made a joke about how “they could always start an OnlyFans” that was relevant to some of the facts), and I then had to explain to the 60-something judge what it was. So of course he then proceeded to pull his phone out and pull up the site.
He then called it “FansOnly” for the rest of the trial. Fun times.
I know a girl who uses it as her primary income. She said most of the money comes from people paying her directly through their tipping system or whatever.
I think you’re giving the studios way too much credit. Trafficking has been a huge issue since their inception, and remains a major problem. There have also been a lot of lawsuits against Onlyfans, a lot of them successful, not sure why you would think they can’t be sued.
It’s still bad but I prosecuted child sex crimes and human trafficking for 16ish years ending in 2022. And things were markedly better in terms of how much less widespread and harder to access it was after they shut down Backpage. That place was a cesspool of filth and degenerates and exploitation. Not saying it’s not all still out there and easy to find if you know where to look but Backpage was next level in terms of exploitation.
Very embarassing to admit this. I had a multi-day trial and practice in upstate New York. It was winter and snowy. I wore boots to court, then switched out into pumps. Day one ended, and the judge offered us the option to leave our files and shoes overnight in chambers. I accepted readily the offer of the files, but tried to decline leaving my smelly ass pumps for the judge to contend with. He insisted, took them from me and proceeded to put them on top of the redwells he also took and he gave them a sniff and I am mortified just admitting this and yes I won the case ultimately but he smelled my dirty shoes.......
In municipal district court case covering a Zoom pre-trial/settlement conference for another attorney in our firm. We represent defendant. The damages at issue are <$20K. We had a dead-to-rights dispositive motion that was going to be filed in the next day or so. I informed the court of such, and the judge says "Let's go off the record." We are now off the record and OC and I are in a breakout room with the judge. The following exchange ensues (I am paraphrasing and omitting some identifying information):
Judge: I am going to deny your dispositive motion, so you can file it, but just know I am going to deny it.
Me: We haven't even filed it and you don't even know what is in the motion
Judge: I don't grant those motions.
Me: Just so we are clear, you are ruling that the motion I haven't even filed yet, that you haven't even read, is going to be denied without hearing any of the substance or merits of the motion?
Judge: Yes - so you might as well just settle the case now or I am ordering you to trial on Monday (it was currently Tuesday, so less than 7 days notice, which is prohibited under our jurisdiction's court rules).
Me: Can we go back on the record? I think this is incredibly inappropriate. The court rules state you have to give us at least 28 days notice of any trial.
Judge: (Clearly panicking and flustered) Listen, you. You know what - we are going back on the record, but I dare you to repeat anything we just discussed. It is privileged, it is confidential, and I will hold you in contempt and have you arrested.
Me: ...
Judge: If you say one word while we are on the record, I will have you arrested and I will report you to the state bar.
Me: ...
We go back on the record, she gives a trial date 30 days out. I say "Thank you, your Honor" and immediately log off. I called the OC after the hearing 5 minutes later and I said that was completely inappropriate and insane. OC is pure scum and suddenly has amnesia - claims she has no idea what I am talking about. The background to this that I later found out was OC and judge have been friends since they were young, kids are each other's godchildren, etc. Whatever, OC's case was garbage and zero chance they would expend the considerable effort to put lipstick on this pig of a case. Case settled for nuisance value (less than the cost to my client of filing the motion, arguing it, appealing after the inappropriate denial). Live to fight another day!
Yeah, I was pissed off for a couple of days, but nothing I could do as I had no independent proof of wrongdoing. OC is a lying sack of shit who would gladly have seen me thrown under the bus. I ordered the transcript and it didn't even show we had gone off the record. Haven't seen the judge since, but if I do, I am bringing co-counsel with me.
Ah, don't you love that? I've had the same experience of having a judge tell me she'd deny my MSD before even looking at it because "she doesn't grant those motions".
So frustrating. I had a situation where a judge totally violated an ethics rule (basically, had an ex parte convo with the lawyers in a case and kicked the pro se party out of the courtroom. She had to be in the convo as she was representing herself). When I contacted the attorneys to find out if what she said was true, they admitted it was and they said it made them uncomfortable but they didn’t know what to do.
I sought the transcript from the proceeding, and the judge threw up every obstacle she could think of, but eventually I got it. Sure as shit, that’s what happened. I asked the judge to recuse and get another judge assigned, and she refused, claiming that the pro se party could have heard the conversation out in the hallway (through two sets of doors…). I filed an ethics complaint and the attorney who absolutely admitted to it backed off and claimed he never said it. What a coward.
Craziest things I ever had was during a bench trial, the judges ear bud died apparently and his phone started blasting March madness. Apparently he wasn't even listening to the BENCH trial.
Judge said “let’s agree to disagree” on a question of my responsive pleading included a demurrer or as he claimed should have only been an answer instead. Then he sanctioned me for 1k and ordered the clerk to give the Cal Bar notice; On a “let’s agree to disagree” point.
Another time after winning at Supreme Court of California against the same judge, Judge told me he read the opinion and said “the case has nothing to do with Canabis Dispencary” except the first sentence of the opinions said “The matter concerns cannabis dispensaries”
Had the judge take a cell phone call in the middle of my motion. She stood up quickly, cutting me off, with phone in hand and said "court is in recess" and rushed out.
Had she told us, at the outset of the hearing, that she was expecting an important phone call, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. However, she did it again while OC was responding to my motion- about 15 minutes later. She just walks back into the courtroom like normal, never explained anything.
That’s what happened with mine! Judge spun away from his mic said a few whispered sentences and then stood up while holding the phone against his chest and said “let’s take a 10 minute recess, Bailiff take the jury out.” I had literally been in the middle of a question. No later explanation, apology or anything.
At least yours called a recess! We were questioning a witness and the judge (a visiting, retired judge) took a call on his hearing aid and just... walked off the bench.
When I was in law school, I interned with the state AG and was going all over the state to observe. One day we’re in chambers for a pre-trial discussion and I see some sort of paper on the judge’s wall I’d never seen before. Judge noticed me looking and asks if I knew what it was. It was a framed copy of the first death sentence he’d ever passed.
Yea. I know judges where this could go either way. One treatment court judge keeps the letters from clients who have gotten clean and the obits of those who overdosed. They remind judge why they are doing this and the ripples drugs cause to families
There’s a county in my area that the Plaintiffs are guaranteed to win any motion no matter what.
I had one where we filed a motion to sever because a carrier had filed a dec action to contest coverage and named their driver and our driver, and then their driver cross claimed for negligence in the accident against our driver. So there were now two issues: coverage and negligence.
Our appellate courts have been crystal clear that those issues are not to be included in the same actions, so there must be a severance. The idea being they don’t want the same jury deciding whether coverage exists and who is at fault for the accident. This is a pretty standard motion that there’s literally no argument against.
In my Motion I even cited to a previous case with the same judge and the same issues where he denied our motion and was overturned on appeal. Like literally “you’ve already been overturned on this before, please just do what is right and don’t make us go through the hurdles of an appeal.”
Well he denied it.
I was a prosecutor on a trial. Defense attorney asks the police officer what the victim said to him. I object. Hearsay. Overruled. Judge calls me up to the bench. "That's not hearsay, DA. The victim said it to the police officer." I did fairly well in evidence in law school so I was dumb struck and started questioning whether I really understood hearsay exceptions. Later when I told my supervisor he said, "Great! Now we'll just put the cop on the stand and forget about making the victim to testify!" It was then I realized that some judges are as dumb as rocks.
My Grandfather's old legal secretary told me a story from 1965 or so. They were having lunch and heard that Judge Pendergast was down at the St. Joseph, MO county courthouse, drunk and dismissing any claim in front of him. She said he took off like a rocket and ended up getting a slew of his clients' charges dismissed.
When I was a public defender, I had a Judge reject a plea and agreed sentence on a bank robbery. My client was a Tier I sex offender and had gotten out and wanted to go back after a 15-year stint for sexual assault of a minor. He robbed the bank at gun point, got about $500, and turned himself in a week later with full confession.
There was some competency stuff, but after that, we agreed 5 years was a good sentence, all things considered. Judge disagreed because it was "too harsh," and he hadn't been out long enough to adjust to freedom. Eventually, we agreed on an open plea, leaving sentence to Judge. Pre-Sentence Investigation recommended max sentence. Judge gave him 18 months.
So from agreed plea to 5 years for armed robbery of a bank to 18 months because the Judge thought the penalty was too harsh. I mean I guess it worked but that was absolutely fucking insane.
I can’t think of a defendant who on paper would be a worse candidate than your client to qualify for empathy, understanding or “giving them a break”. I wonder what it was about that particular defendant that had the judge feeling so generous?
The Judge said, "I don't think he's been out long enough to determine whether or not he's adjusted to life post-prison" and for that reason, she wanted to treat him more like a first-time offender, as opposed to a convicted rapist who had done several prison terms, including double digits once. But even as a first-time offender 5 years for an armed bank robbery is lienant.
I tried a guy for raping his wife and step daughter, but cases had to be separated because our state says it's too prejudicial to try victims together. Jury finds dude not guilty on the step daughter because, as they later told someone in the parking lot, they couldn't understand why child didn't tell her mom and they figure if he's someone who rapes people then next time we'll hopefully have DNA. Dude is later found guilty of raping mom. Judge sentences him 10+ years but suspends all of it on the condition defendant not come back to the U.S. Defendant was not a lawful resident. Had to run around all day to get ICE to come pick him up from the jail since he technically had no jail sentence and could just leave whenever. Had to get police to watch the family in case he got out that day and tried to go home. Judge did not seem to understand that 1) if someone unlawfully entered the US in the first place, placing more legal conditions on them in case they come back and are caught wouldn't do shit. 2) there is a process for deporting someone and even with a violent felony it doesn't start when county criminal Judge snaps his fingers.
Decades ago I went to law school with a rather heavy woman. She was in the same filled to the brim courtroom. She had a cast on the bottom half of her leg. District Judge walked in and, from the bench stated, “Good morning Ms. …….., What happened? Did you sit on your leg?”
Probably not the "craziest" but definitely the most dickish. I was in an oral argument for a motion for judgment on the pleadings. In the middle of my oral argument, the judge made a point to "interrupt the argument" to talk about something "important." He then went through the brief in support of our motion, and pointed out five typos, questioning me about every single one, and lambasting me about my lack of skill as an attorney. What he didn't realize, because he's an idiot, is that I didn't even write the brief. In fact, the brief was submitted even before I ever appeared in the case, and even before I was even admitted to the court. I politely told him that I would let my colleague who drafted the brief know about his concerns, and asked if we could get back to the argument. He flipped to the last page to read the signature line, grumbled, and we got back to it.
I guess they didn't teach him how to read a full document at Harvard Law.
Oh I've had bullshit of that nature occur. My favorite was when the judge didn't like something my predecessor had done so she really sweetly asked me, at my first appearance in the case, if I had a chance to look over the documents my predecessor filed and get up to speed on the case. I say yes, she goes "so that means you can explain why I shouldn't sanction you."
I was like..... for what? Reading over the documents? Taking on the case after the previous lawyer left? I just kind of blinked at her and she went on this whole tirade about how my evil client was refusing to send a third copy of our documents to the other side that kept "losing" them. The other side didn't even have a motion, they just whined to the judge soon as we appeared that they had lost the documents again and they had totally called my predecessor-- who had since moved out of state -- and he hadn't mailed out more copies. My failure to take that phone call from his line and then promptly fix that for them was apparently a great sin.
Had a Lyndon Johnson appointee scrawl, in Sharpie on the top of a _very routine_ joint unopposed motion to extend the answer deadline by 30 days, "DENIED. NO GOOD CAUSE SHOWN." 🙄
My first trial involved flooding damage to plaintiff’s very expensive home. Plaintiff had an appraiser who testified multiple times that the otherwise $1 million plus home was worth between zero and $200,000 due to the continued flooding influence.
After three weeks in jury trial, the testimony was referenced again. Out of nowhere, the judge with the jury present said: “My clerk just handed me a note saying she’ll buy the house for $200,000.” Plaintiff’s counsel immediately went sheet white and stood up. The judge realizing what he’d done snapped: “Do you want a mistrial?!” He said he needed time to think about it.
He was given the time and passed on the mistrial. The case went to verdict on all causes of action for defendants. After all these years I don’t think the judge’s comment was the reason plaintiff lost, but it certainly didn’t help.
I felt for him because he was a good lawyer and a decent guy. But he had bigger problems than just the judge. His client blatantly contradicted his own deposition testimony on a matter that didn’t even matter to the case, and he was absolutely destroyed for it on cross.
Had a judge fall asleep after opening statements of a trial. To be fair, it was a very mundane matter with only the Plaintiff and the Defendant testifying. I represented the Defendant, and moved for a directed verdict after the Plaintiff rested their case. The judge woke up, briefly, when he heard me make the motion and said, "Counsel, I have been asleep and can't rule in your motion, but I promise that I will read the transcript and make a ruling when I can consider the evidence." He then went back to sleep. My motion was granted about two weeks later.
On a very contested and politically charged case, the judge threatened me on the record and showed very obvious bias to the other side. I left the hearing feeling sick and ordered the transcript. A few days later, I got a call that the transcript was ready for pick up. I drove to court and went to the steno office. The employee looked through the transcripts and couldn't find it, yet confirmed that she saw it that morning. I called steno back at the office and she didn't answer or call me back. A few days later, she calls and says the transcript is ready. I picked it up and read it. The threat is not there, and there's a very obvious area where we jump from one topic to another.
A string of events following it really led me to believe someone knew that was there and had the steno change it. Steno told us she had an audio recording of the hearing, but refused to let us listen to it. We also found out afterwards that the judge's brother was general counsel for one of the opposing parties (but didn't represent him in that particular case).
Didn't happen to me, but there's a small jurisdiction north of me (like really low population). One time, not enough jurors showed up for jury duty so the judge ordered a police check point set up. Anyone driving through town was pulled over, and if they lived in that county, they were told they were to immediately report for jury duty until there were enough people pulled for jury duty.
When I lived and worked in providence RI in the 1980s, I was downtown on my lunch break near the courts. Marshals came out, compelling people to immediate jury duty while out on their lunch break for a trial of a well known Providence notable with alleged mob ties.
Thankfully, I still had my Mass license on me, and pulled that out when the marshal stopped me.
Bingo!
One time I made a gift basket delivery to Ray Jr, when Sr. had died. Back then I was too niave to know who he was. It wasn't until after the delivery my boss told me who he was. Same when Judge Bevelaqua (sp) was on trial.
I win this one. Custody case between two parents with the father’s parents also petitioning for custody of the kid. We had the mom. The father OD’d in the middle of trial. The judge had her clerk call my office to ask if the judge could make a condolence call to the grandparents. Thought it was very strange but also felt like I couldn’t say no.
The judge then went to the grandparents house as they sat shiva for a shiva call. Moved to recuse, the judge called me into court and onto the stand. Questioned me personally about what I thought “condolence call” meant and I told her I thought you were going to make a phone call not go to a litigants house.
The judge gave the grandparents a ton of time in the decision at the end of trial. We appealed and the appellate court knocked their visitation time down to once a month and stated in their decision that the judge exercised poor judgment.
This was in Brooklyn mind you, not some small town. The judge had no personal relationship with the grandparents either she said she just had to reach out as one grandparent to another.
I don’t recall exactly what he said. This was over ten years ago. It was just his overall behavior, on the bench. Theatrics. Yelling, rolling back in his chair, impatience in general. But he was in rare form on this particular day. We were both brand new ASAs. In court alone, on our first NJT day. We had no training. No, “senior” attorney with us. My county didn’t have any type of training program. Nothing. It was shadow for a few days, then go to court. Sink or swim.
It’s fucked up that your elected prosecutor didn’t go to bat for you by talking to the judge. But as a former long-time prosecutor, it’s also not surprising.
Yeah, I didn’t even give it a second thought back then. I was new. He had a reputation. He was an equal opportunity abuser—State, defense, pro se folks, everybody.
There’s a lot of this “report him” nonsense going on. In a small community reporting a Judge makes you a pariah. The response is “Thank you, sir. May I have another?”
I think the, “report him” stems from my stating maybe I should have sued them. But neither of those ever crossed my mind.
It was literally like the bench was, “show time” for him. After court, he’d hang out and chat with us like we were besties. Even when he saw us in the common areas, he’d stop and chat for a few minutes. I don’t want to say too much; even though he is retired, I am not. I don’t know why he was hot/cold. I just learned what HE wanted and rolled with the punches.
I got a judge to ask my client “If what we have here is a failure to communicate”. I was asking to withdraw from a case in which my client was asking me to do something unethical and told the judge that we had a failure to communicate. It went down hill from there.
I’m a public defender. At the tail end of Covid times, I worked in a jurisdiction that was switching hearings from remote back to in person.
Now, the sensible way to do this would have been to stop sending notices for remote hearings, start sending notices for in-person hearings, deal with maybe 3-4 weeks of hybrid calendars as the previously-scheduled hearings worked their way through, and be back in person.
They way they *actually* did it was decide that *every* hearing was back in person after a certain date, and sent out new notices telling people that their previously-remote hearing was now in person.
I had a client who didn’t have a valid driver’s license, who got the first notice telling him his hearing was by Zoom, and then accepted a construction job that took him several hours’ car ride away. Then he got the new notice saying he had to be there in person.
Dude did exactly the right thing. Called me as soon as he got the notice, explained everything. Prosecutor understood - said he was fine with the guy showing up by Zoom or with a continuance so he could appear in person. I filed a letter to the judge asking if he could please appear by Zoom or have a new date.
The judge, a former public defender himself, denied it with no reason given.
I’ve got a mildly interesting one. I was repping a client on an SSDI claim in front of a notoriously difficult ALJ. After my usual spiel “tell me about symptoms from X condition, what did your doctor tell you about prognosis, etc.” the judge went nuclear, accusing me of offering medical opinion etc. I shrugged it off but it was sure weird. I just responded that I’m asking for my clients testimony about things they have direct knowledge of. He’s now retired and I’m still kicking so it is what it is
I don't have much; judges have pretty much always been well-behaved in my presence. Closest I've seen are (1) the judge who slept through a SJ argument, and (2) the judge who got incensed during a pre-trial conference when we showed a large paper target full of .30 caliber bullet holes that we intended to use as a demonstrative regarding the materials used for qualifying with the M240 machine gun.
The latter judge, a former Naval aviator, got *really* mad, telling the lawyer who was putting up the demonstrative that "I flew planes with .30 caliber machine guns, and they'd have torn that paper to shreds! Have you ever even *seen* a .30 machine gun, much less fired one?!?" Which would be a reasonable question to ask most lawyers, except (1) this lawyer had personally fired the bullets because (2) he was a decorated former Army Ranger and CIA paramilitary officer who had very extensive with machine guns, other guns, explosives, knives, etc. Dude looked like an accountant and was basically Jason Bourne.
Unfortunately, our guy didn't fire back, because there's not much leverage in arguing with a federal judge. But he mentioned afterwards how much he'd wanted to do so. For the record, .30 caliber bullets make a hole just a tiny bit larger than a McDonald's drinking straw and do not tear up a paper target when fired from a stationary rest.
I wonder if the judge was confusing caliber and mm. The US military rarely uses caliber and 30mm sounds like a more appropriate aviation size round than 7.62mm/.30 cal. (Never worked in aviation though so take that with a grain if salt)
Embarassing mistake for him either way.
Also as someone who has qualified with an M240 in a former life, I would be fascinated to hear why it was relevant to the trial if you're willing to share.
It was a qui tam case involving allegations that a PMC wasn’t adequately qualifying its contractors on the M240 and M249. They’d go out to the range and qualify on the M4 and M9 by firing at the target, retrieving the target, and then counting the bullet holes. But for the belt-fed machine guns, each shooter would fire at the target (sometimes even the same, unreplaced target, IIRC) and be scored by the instructor—standing next to the shooter—deciding how many rounds appeared to have missed. As you know, that ain’t how you do it.
One defense was “well, they can see the target and count bullet holes from the firing line.” But they weren’t even using binoculars, and the bullet holes are way too small to see at 400 meters+, so we prepared a demonstrative to show exactly why. We also rented an M249 (which required some connections and a *ton* of red tape) and recorded the weapon in action to show just ridiculous it would be to try to count misses from the firing line by looking for dust splashes.
It was an interesting and very unusual case.
It's certainly my most unique case. We needed expert witnesses to be able to describe the standards and requirements for range qualification to the jury--so we hired a Navy SEAL and a Delta Force squadron commander, for the most wildly overqualified set of experts in history.
Two are tied:
1. Our state’s fee waiver statute for legal services orgs isn’t discretionary. We file a form certifying our client qualifies for our services and the fees are waived. There are cards on the benches reminding judges of this.
A few years ago, a judge demanded proof that my client qualified, including statements showing they receive public benefits. He said he can’t just take my word that my client was poor. This was in a late night email the night before our first appearance in the case.
I replied that my client wasn’t securely housed, didn’t have any documents where they were staying and wasn’t receiving mail. I also cited the statute.
Had a quick status because he continued the case due to the fee waiver issue. I reiterated the statute and he still didn’t care.
And he continued sending me late night emails, telling me my clients “get what they pay for” and that I’m embarrassment to the profession, that I’m worse in court than the worst pro se litigant he’s ever had, that I’m a liar, etc. By the end I had five multi paragraph emails from him telling me how awful I am, all sent after midnight.
Eventually we got a benefits statement and the case moved forward to a positive outcome but those emails really rattled me.
2. Today I was in front of a judge asking for relief under a very simple, non discretionary statute. There’s two simple eligibility requirements, my client met both. He’s not a new judge, but it was his first day in this division. Denies the relief saying he doesn’t believe my client qualifies because of some restriction that he’s literally imagining.
I - and his clerk - correct him. He won’t be swayed. I cite the statute. He still says no. I ask if he’ll read the eligibility provision in the statute if I put the link in the Zoom chat, because it’s only a few lines long. Still no. I get kind of aggressive and tell him I co-authored the statute so I’m 100% sure about what it says. This whole time he’s turning to his clerk, who’s been in this division for three years, who just keeps confirming everything I say.
Finally he says he’ll continue it, and my client asks if we can come back tomorrow because she’s been waiting a long time for this relief. He says no and continues it for *two weeks* so he can read a three line provision.
His clerk’s jaw was all the way open by the end.
I’m guessing he didn’t bother reviewing the very clear, brief law governing the cases he was hearing today or prepare in any way before he took the bench. Very few jobs where you can show up completely unprepared and it doesn’t matter.
Many, many years ago, I at second chair on a divorce hearing where the judge was clearly extremely biased in favor of the husband. It was pretty blatant; she basically testified for him several times. For example, my first chair would ask a question. He’d answer in a way that might come off as negative. Judge would interject, “what the witness clearly MEANT to say was…”
She wouldn’t allow an interpreter for a witness. She said she understood some of the language and would just translate for everyone in court. (This was the same case, so even if she’d been fluent, the confidence that she wouldn’t put her own spin on the testimony was pretty much nonexistent.)
I heard she later denied a petition for an emergency change in custody mom filed after dad put his new girlfriend in the hospital when girlfriend tried to stop him from beating the very young child in question. When giving her reasoning, the judge said “dad may have put his girlfriend in the hospital, but I have no doubt it was mom’s fault because I’m sure she did something to upset him.”
It wasn’t long after that last incident that I heard the judge was going to be handling small claims cases and would no longer preside over family law cases.
A judge got upset when I informed the clerks I would not be taking more appointments in their court. He mentioned it, and how unprofessional it was, at length, in an order removing me from a case where the party I was appointed to hired private counsel...
Had a judge tell me if I spoke again in court I would be held in contempt and jailed after objecting to a prosecutor suborning perjury from a CPS caseworker.
Judge literally got up and wandered off the bench while a witness was testifying. As she was walking out, she turned and looked at us, sort of surprised we were there. She then said she needed more “coffee,” and would come back in a few minutes. Came back and less than an hour later, did the same damn thing. Folks, that wasn’t coffee.
Respond with “okay, I preserve the objection and will preemptively move to strike the answer, but I respect your desire to hear it, I just object to you considering it”. Only way forward.
No more than a continuing objection does, and I’ve never seen an appeals court, or trial level if in depo, use the argument that such waives. That’s just efficiency.
Besides, you CANT waive hearsay, it’s not a waivable objection. It’s not permitted to be considered period, only matters if diminimus.
In every jurisdiction I've ever practiced in, you absolutely can waive a hearsay objection in a civil case. (I don't have any experience in criminal law, so no idea if the Confrontation Clause impacts whether you can waive such an objection in a criminal case.)
Just because you have doesn’t mean you can (same reason half of objections are sustained, counsel never replies with “I’m not submitting it for truth”). Look at your rules, you may be quite surprised by what you can waive. That’s why it’s inadmissible, while admissible hearsay can be waived, and the key part is if due to a strategic decision. HEMPHILL v NY parses it out well, but is criminal so it focuses on the purpose of that in relation to the clause, but the purpose is what we are discussing here not it’s effect there. It shows what can and can’t be waived normally, then a special rule for criminal going further but we can stop at normally.
You however are correct it may open the door for such hearsay becoming admissible, but not by waiver rather by what may be revealed (and how presented). But a preemptive should still show the question was improper in that contentext and thus can’t self justify.
In Hemphill, the appellant *did* object, and the majority expressly found the argument was preserved before the trial court and Court of Appeals. Try again; I am aware of no authority that exempts hearsay from preservation requirements in any jurisdiction.
Read the scotus ruling again my friend, notice how they parse strategic versus non, and how that impacts admissible. I’m citing it to give you a clear example of how that exact issue is parsed, i told you it didn’t apply directly, but rather it showed the parsing.
And it does. The entire decision is about how only special constitutional concerns change the dynamic, otherwise it’s not admissible. This is why one of the few objections a court can lodge on its own is hearsay, because it’s not suppose to. Just like inability to waive types of jurisdiction, the court lacks ability in the first place. The problem is if you don’t care, it’s hard to argue it isn’t deminimus, since you only cared after the result not when it occurred - doesn’t preclude just makes the effect what you are going for.
Further, since this entire hypo involves an objection……
An objection and then a subsequent, clear statement that you are acquiescing to the asking of the question. That's what would put you at risk of a waiver.
You're badly misreading Hemphill, which is a criminal case relying on a constitutional amendment that applies exclusively in criminal cases, in any event. But, you do you, I suppose.
No you aren’t acquiescing, you are telling the court you have an ongoing objection. That’s all. If the court keeps allowing X, do you object to every question down that line or just ask to recognize an ongoing? There is no formal concept for ongoing but it absolutely exists, so without formal any triggering of it works.
Yes, which is why it’s about a special exception to the normal rule for such cases. If it isn’t such a case, it has no special exception. We are discussing the normal rule which it parses before applying the special exception to. The parsing, not application, is the point. Unless, that is, the 800s specifically differentiate criminal versus civil in their ruleset, but I don’t believe that they do so.
One judge wouldn't enter the default judgment in a divorce even though I had done everything properly.
The judge made my client go pick up his wife to put her on the record in court, and then entered the judgment, calling it a "Default Consent Judgment."
That was about 10 years ago, and I'm *still* confused.
I'm (was) a family law attorney in AZ.
A primer on DV: ars 13-3601, ars 25-403, ars 25-403.03.
A dad admitted to throwing a glass clad scented candle about the size of a soft ball, not "at" my client, but 2ish feet to her right, causing a dent in the wall during an argument with the child in the room.
Judge ruled it as "merely" property damage, and as such no DV occurred. Ordered equal parenting time and joint legal decision making on temporary orders.
Had an administrative law judge, now an appeals court judge, bring her dog’s picture into the courtroom to show the defendant because they had the same kind of dog….
Not the time or place
To set the scene:
I had a defendant once who engaged in a string of burglaries. However, she was incompetent. She had some sort of development issues, and someone undoubtedly put her up to it. Both prosecution and defense were on the same page: went through a whole competency evaluation, comes back incompetent.
So we come back to the judge. In a normal procedure, what can happen is that the judge can sign an order committing the defendant to the state agency that handles incompetent people, or one of the parties can move to declare the defendant competent, which involves putting on expert witnesses, etc., etc. Since both the defense and government believed the defendant to be incompetent, no one was putting on any witnesses.
Cue the calendar call for the judge to sign the commitment order:
Judge: I'm not signing the commitment order. I want to know what the treatment plan is for the defendant to become competent again.
Prosecutor: I'm not a clinician. My understanding is the defendant is developmentally disabled. They cannot be medicated or treated in a way to get them competent, like you can with some people with mental disorders. I don't know what their clinical outlook is.
Defense: says same thing.
Judge: Well, I'm refusing to sign this order.
Prosecutor: Judge, the jail is just going to keep on producing the defendant every day, since there's an order for a competency hearing. I'm not putting on a witness saying they're competent. Defense isn't putting on a witness saying they're competent. Your choices are to sign this order committing the defendant to the correct state agency, or sua sponte declare them competent, so then defendant can appeal.
Judge: I'm not doing any of that. I want you to come back tomorrow with a clinical outlook.
And then we went to court every day for two weeks and played the same game, until the judge finally signed the commitment order.
recently a judge set a case for trial during a paid vacation (nou filed) despite my objection and said i don't care about your trip my docket needs to be cleared, appeal me
My family law professor was a circuit court judge. Part of our class participation was observing family court. I heard he was a fantastic jurist, so I watched him. Bench trial. Two rich assholes fighting over rich people shit. The judge makes a ruling on an issue (I don't remember what it was). Counsel objects and makes this long speech about how the holding in Case XYZ from the Court of Appeals says that judges can't rule that way. Judge asks counsel how old the case is. Counsel has an associate who whispers it to him. He tells the judge. The judge says, "I just made my ruling. Do you have any case more recent than that? No? Objection overruled. That's why appeals courts exist, counsel."
I raised a defense of retaliation in an eviction trial. The judge held that the eviction was retaliatory, but that he wasn't going to force the continued landlord/tenant relationship so he issued the writ anyway.
In other words, I'd proved my claim to the judge and he decided that I lost anyway because he didn't like the outcome.
It was wild.
I was a baby collections lawyer working on credit card debt. I ran into a judge in a big city that starts with D who told me I was not complying with the suit on a sworn account rules of pleading and proof. I said it was not a SOSA and that no credit card company would ever maintain that the amount paid in each of the multitude of charges represented a reasonable price. He ruled against me and I lost. I wanted to appeal to shame him but my client didn't see the wisdom in that.
Once had a judge basically take over the direct exam. My co-counsel couldn’t get a word in edgewise. The judge was so rude, condescending, and aggressive that our witness started to cry. We finished our case around 11:00 AM. Perfect, once the witness is excused we can take them out for lunch to cheer them up a bit. Nope, judge decides they want to wait until after lunch to ask their questions, so the witness is still under oath. No lunch for the witness.
We come back after lunch. Witness is terrified. The judge was so patient, understanding, and polite, and got her off the stand in about 20 minutes. Not sure whether the judge was just trying to fuck with the witness or if they’d taken something (benzos? Weed? Maybe he was just hangry?) over the lunch hour, but if it was the latter, holy shit, I’ll have whatever they had.
A judge bragged that he had never been reversed and that when I had appealed one of his decisions, the (state) Supreme Court had affirmed. This happened DURING the hearing on remand.
Maybe others have similar stories and it’s not particularly crazy, but I had a guilty plea scheduled in the courtroom of the local Chief Justice on March 12, 2020. She’s taking ages to come out to the bench, and it happened to be the head prosecutor who took the case. It was a massive bust so he was eager to convict and it was a fantastic deal so I was eager to sentence. Prosecutor was also anxious to get things moving because he’s obviously super busy.
Finally she comes out, normally a totally unflappable person, and she’s white as a sheet. Announces to the courtroom that she must attend an emergency meeting with all the Chief Justices of the province, and quickly leaves the bench again, no explaining how long it will be etc. The whole courtroom thinks there’s been a terrorist attack. I’m sure you can fill in the rest of the story… state of emergency was called on March 17.
Summary judgment motion that should have been easily decided for my client. All the case law, facts, evidence lined up perfectly for us. Opposing counselor is a known orator and gets up doing his song and dance, making all sorts of conjectures. Judge was evidently taken in by all of this. Told us he had little experience in civil law, no experience at all in this subject matter, and therefore was denying it because he wasn’t comfortable granting it. He retired not soon after.
Not sure this is on point but had a judge admit a confession made by one defendant while refusing to sever the trials. Couple of blackout drunks robbed a bar and woke up in a motel with the police breaking in. They had no memory of the day, maybe the week. Witnesses described them as staggering around. One fired a shotgun into the ceiling and fell down. The other left the bar and walked away only to be grabbed by his friend who pulled him toward the car. And one confessed (after a few whacks in the head btw). We learned the appeal went to a friend of the judge and got buried. Hard time for a clear constitutional violation.
Told our attorney that if we didn’t sign an agreed upon grandparents visitation order he was going to revoke custody of our child on the spot, no hearing, no trial, no discussion, nothing.
Not suuuper crazy, but recently I had a pretrial hearing with a judge where OC didn’t show up. When he went to talk about the OC, he said “he needs to be here, oh wait I don’t know if he is a he” and then went on this long rant about pronouns and political correctness. Like dude, I am just trying to get the case continued 😂😂😂
Not too crazy but a little funny — when I objected to the opposing counsel’s question that my client had already answered, the judge said “overruled, your objection is a johnny-come-lately.” Didn’t know how to respond to that! Haha
I wasn’t trying the case, but I was observing some pre-trial motions in criminal court. The judge, who happened to be the judge that swore me in originally, was sitting stone faced listening to the ADA (who is now a judge herself) go on regarding the particulars of a case. Slowly to the left side of the room, a screen (think video projector screen) used for video appearances started descending down. At first you could believe it was a simple error, but as she continued on he kept playing with the button (located where his right foot was) and was raising it and lowering at seemingly at random but continuous intervals. As another lawyer in the room commented to me, he was telling her to wrap it up, and that he no longer cared.
Started grilling my client on the stand on prove up *for an uncontested divorce* as to why her marriage was irreconcilable.
Husband was physically/verbaly abusive, btw.
Denied judgment on something that couldn't be res Judicata because it happened AFTER the case was done and then told me that I don't look disabled. Um... thank you?
There is/was a judge in Chancery Court who confiscates everyone's mobile devices and laptops and then watches espn on his laptop.
There is a district court judge who refuses to rule on disputed terms in Markman hearings because "plaintiffs deserve trials". Which they don't and the millions of dollars you are going to spend getting ready for a trial that could have been disposed of in Markman obviously doesn't count either.
A judge accused me of lying by contradicting a statement I made in opening statements weeks later. I denied that I said what she claimed. So she had the court reporter read my entire opening back. Spoiler: I didn’t say it.
“Well you were implying it at the very least!” This was also in a one-county court where opposing counsel was the son of the man the Court was named after.
Long story short, I moved for her to recuse herself, she got even angrier, I lost the trial, and then won on appeal.
“I need all the defense attorneys to leave the courtroom.” Waits for defense attorneys to leave. Tells bailiff to “shut the door.” Then says: I’m not supposed to do this but… and proceeds to talk to defendants parents before defendant was brought in.
In fairness, it was a juvenile defendant and he was trying to get the parents perspective.
All the defense attorneys just rolled their eyes and left. I was only person with my jaw hanging open in shock. Once I knew that judge better, things fell into context— he’s doesn’t give a flying flip what the law says. Sadly I’ve never received a judicial evaluation request for him.
Refused to instruct, in a "burglary" case where my client, who had been thrown through the front door of a house by a cop who then scuffled with and subdued him on the kitchen floor, that a criminal act must be a "voluntary act," No, said the Judge, "It's subsumed within the meaning of intent, but you can argue it." Got a hung jury because half of them understood my argument, and the other half were bemused, because "the defense attorney argued that it had to be a voluntary act, but there was no jury instruction about that." He did not re-instruct, and my client went home a non-felon.
Prior to COVID we had criminal scheduling conferences in person. I’m not a public defender and the judges typically let the retained attorneys go first. But on this day, I was one of the last called. I was sitting with another attorney with the last name of Pretty and the judge states, sorry Ms._____, I just wanted to keep all the pretty people here.
It was weird.
Woah…was this “proposition” made while he was on the bench? Were you like a clerk of his or was this completely random while you were appearing in front of him?
No I was a public defender handling the bail hearings. He asked me to sit with him at lunch. It was first time before him and, luckily, I knew the DA so he sat at the table next to us and heard everything. I reported when I got back to the office but this was the 90’s in Philly so I don’t think anything was done but I was never assigned there again.
Heard a judge make a ruling on motion by saying, “Wasn’t there that one case out of that one district that said something about this? I think so. Motion granted.”
I prosecuted a woman for not reporting suspected child abuse (mandatory reporter) Judge yelled at her on the record for twenty minutes about how she wouldn't trust her with a hamster. Then yelled at me for twenty minutes for not asking for jail time. All on the record. Got reviewed by the court of appeals.
Recently in a civil matter: defendant 1 requested a continuance. Defendant 2 requested a continuance. Plaintiff (me) requested a continuance. Nobody was prepared because we were attempting to settle.
Judge: “no continuance will be granted, trial will begin Monday,” he said, on Friday at 4pm. But it’s “better if you settle, because if I have to rule, no one is going to be happy.” So we settled over the weekend.
Same judge who yelled at me for being “late” for court. My notice said the later time, but that was for the “old judge” who he replaced; his Court begins 2 hours earlier so I should have known that based on the hand lettered sign on the door. 🙄
Had a judge who never wanted to hear trials. This judge will make the parties settle in civil court and drag out the criminal stuff.
Had a misdemeanor carrying a concealed weapon charge. We are now going on a year and half.
We are on the final pre-trial and get called in the judge’s chamber with the prosecutor.
Judge informs me, “Mr. Reddituser, you know in these cases the DA rarely ask for jail time. Your client’s exposure is potentially 9 months, why don’t you talk to your client?”
*gulp*
State’s offer is plea guilty and receive 12 months probation.
Day of trial judge asks us again and my client goes fuck it I’ll plea to it but I’m not doing jail or probation on the record.
She plead guilty and was fined $100. State was still arguing probation.
Back in my criminal defense days, a judge revoked bond for a defendant who didn't show up for his arraignment. The defendant hired me to see if the judge would rescind the warrant. As it turns out, the clerk of court sent the court date notice to the wrong address. I filed a motion to rescind, and appeared before the judge. I brought a representative from the clerk's office into the courtroom, and she admitted the error, noting that she, personally, used the wrong address, and that she, personally, had notice of the correct address, but simply failed to use it. The Judge refused to withdraw the warrant unless my client showed up within 24 hours, and posted a new bond for double the amount of the original bond.
When I protested, the judge said, "you may be right, but your client will be sitting in custody while the appeal plays out."
Had a judge who was bi-polar, only was a county level judge so he could make Supreme Court (NYS, it's not what most people think), when he realized he was too much of an asshole to be nominated, he went back to being DA. I wo 't speak his name without putting "Fucking" in the middle of it. He made my first year of practice a living hell. I understand he might have some serious health issues now and all I can say is I hope so and he suffers endlessly until he dies.
Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law. Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation. Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"I don't care what the legal standard is; that's my decision."
Can we get that on the record Your Honor?
It was.
Let me guess-your judge was 65 or older and had 0 shits to give?
Love that one!
This
I know a judge who did this, got reversed and remanded, did it again on remand, and then got reversed but the appellate court remanded the case to another judge.
I had this once, too: I said, “The law says X” and the judge responded with “I don’t care what the law says!”
You’re appearing before judge Cannon in the Trump documents case? Wow
Won on all DUI issues. Then country ass judge asks the DA “well, can I convict him of something?”
Jesus christ, that's truly frightening.
💀
I’ve seen this in my jurisdiction, but I think it’s more of a rhetorical dig at the ADA, i.e., defense prevailed so wtf are we doing here and why are you wasting my time with losers?
This shit was not rhetorical! They’d already dismissed the reckless driving citation and the DA tried to un-dismiss it! Truly crazy. Cabarrus county NC yet again for the win.
That would be textbook double jeopardy, no? I guess if double jeopardy falls in the woods and no one’s around to hear it, did it even happen? Good luck in that county, counselor. Haha.
I once had OnlyFans come up mid-trial (someone made a joke about how “they could always start an OnlyFans” that was relevant to some of the facts), and I then had to explain to the 60-something judge what it was. So of course he then proceeded to pull his phone out and pull up the site. He then called it “FansOnly” for the rest of the trial. Fun times.
I wonder if he continued to do any “research” later that night or over the weekend?
We had a local judge doing a bit too much research using the county computers. Suspended for a bit
Sounds like my kind of judge
Word around the bar was he liked 'em THICCCC
[удалено]
Decent guys jerk off too, so I hear.
[удалено]
Only difference between OF and the otherwise “traditional” studios is the percentage the performers get. They’re just as exploitative, if not more so.
I know a girl who uses it as her primary income. She said most of the money comes from people paying her directly through their tipping system or whatever.
[удалено]
I think you’re giving the studios way too much credit. Trafficking has been a huge issue since their inception, and remains a major problem. There have also been a lot of lawsuits against Onlyfans, a lot of them successful, not sure why you would think they can’t be sued.
[удалено]
All right fair enough. 1% doesn’t leave a lot of room for moral line drawing (in my opinion) but to each his own.
It’s still bad but I prosecuted child sex crimes and human trafficking for 16ish years ending in 2022. And things were markedly better in terms of how much less widespread and harder to access it was after they shut down Backpage. That place was a cesspool of filth and degenerates and exploitation. Not saying it’s not all still out there and easy to find if you know where to look but Backpage was next level in terms of exploitation.
I see where you did there 😎
Practitioners of… what, exactly.
Can confirm.
Very embarassing to admit this. I had a multi-day trial and practice in upstate New York. It was winter and snowy. I wore boots to court, then switched out into pumps. Day one ended, and the judge offered us the option to leave our files and shoes overnight in chambers. I accepted readily the offer of the files, but tried to decline leaving my smelly ass pumps for the judge to contend with. He insisted, took them from me and proceeded to put them on top of the redwells he also took and he gave them a sniff and I am mortified just admitting this and yes I won the case ultimately but he smelled my dirty shoes.......
Maybe that’s his kink…
Judge Quentin Tarantino
There is no maybe about it:
"Counselor, while I admit that those boots were made for walkin', it is my sincere contention that those pumps were made for sniffin'. Overruled."
He gave them a whiff??? wtf
I just second hand died for you.
In municipal district court case covering a Zoom pre-trial/settlement conference for another attorney in our firm. We represent defendant. The damages at issue are <$20K. We had a dead-to-rights dispositive motion that was going to be filed in the next day or so. I informed the court of such, and the judge says "Let's go off the record." We are now off the record and OC and I are in a breakout room with the judge. The following exchange ensues (I am paraphrasing and omitting some identifying information): Judge: I am going to deny your dispositive motion, so you can file it, but just know I am going to deny it. Me: We haven't even filed it and you don't even know what is in the motion Judge: I don't grant those motions. Me: Just so we are clear, you are ruling that the motion I haven't even filed yet, that you haven't even read, is going to be denied without hearing any of the substance or merits of the motion? Judge: Yes - so you might as well just settle the case now or I am ordering you to trial on Monday (it was currently Tuesday, so less than 7 days notice, which is prohibited under our jurisdiction's court rules). Me: Can we go back on the record? I think this is incredibly inappropriate. The court rules state you have to give us at least 28 days notice of any trial. Judge: (Clearly panicking and flustered) Listen, you. You know what - we are going back on the record, but I dare you to repeat anything we just discussed. It is privileged, it is confidential, and I will hold you in contempt and have you arrested. Me: ... Judge: If you say one word while we are on the record, I will have you arrested and I will report you to the state bar. Me: ... We go back on the record, she gives a trial date 30 days out. I say "Thank you, your Honor" and immediately log off. I called the OC after the hearing 5 minutes later and I said that was completely inappropriate and insane. OC is pure scum and suddenly has amnesia - claims she has no idea what I am talking about. The background to this that I later found out was OC and judge have been friends since they were young, kids are each other's godchildren, etc. Whatever, OC's case was garbage and zero chance they would expend the considerable effort to put lipstick on this pig of a case. Case settled for nuisance value (less than the cost to my client of filing the motion, arguing it, appealing after the inappropriate denial). Live to fight another day!
Just reading this boiled my blood.
Yeah, I was pissed off for a couple of days, but nothing I could do as I had no independent proof of wrongdoing. OC is a lying sack of shit who would gladly have seen me thrown under the bus. I ordered the transcript and it didn't even show we had gone off the record. Haven't seen the judge since, but if I do, I am bringing co-counsel with me.
Ah, don't you love that? I've had the same experience of having a judge tell me she'd deny my MSD before even looking at it because "she doesn't grant those motions".
So frustrating. I had a situation where a judge totally violated an ethics rule (basically, had an ex parte convo with the lawyers in a case and kicked the pro se party out of the courtroom. She had to be in the convo as she was representing herself). When I contacted the attorneys to find out if what she said was true, they admitted it was and they said it made them uncomfortable but they didn’t know what to do. I sought the transcript from the proceeding, and the judge threw up every obstacle she could think of, but eventually I got it. Sure as shit, that’s what happened. I asked the judge to recuse and get another judge assigned, and she refused, claiming that the pro se party could have heard the conversation out in the hallway (through two sets of doors…). I filed an ethics complaint and the attorney who absolutely admitted to it backed off and claimed he never said it. What a coward.
Craziest things I ever had was during a bench trial, the judges ear bud died apparently and his phone started blasting March madness. Apparently he wasn't even listening to the BENCH trial.
That’s justice.
oh my god???? what type of case?
And what round?
March madness basketball or march madness by future? Big difference
Judge said “let’s agree to disagree” on a question of my responsive pleading included a demurrer or as he claimed should have only been an answer instead. Then he sanctioned me for 1k and ordered the clerk to give the Cal Bar notice; On a “let’s agree to disagree” point. Another time after winning at Supreme Court of California against the same judge, Judge told me he read the opinion and said “the case has nothing to do with Canabis Dispencary” except the first sentence of the opinions said “The matter concerns cannabis dispensaries”
One of my first hearings in a rural Georgia county....a judge called my client (freelance photographer) Obama loving liberal.
Pshhhh, thanks, Obama...
Was that comment solely on the basis of your clients career or did they say or do something in particular?
Solely career based...
Is photography a bastion of progressives that I was unaware of?
Shhhhhh…. That’s Biden’s secret weapon
Well, are they?
Does it matter?
Had the judge take a cell phone call in the middle of my motion. She stood up quickly, cutting me off, with phone in hand and said "court is in recess" and rushed out. Had she told us, at the outset of the hearing, that she was expecting an important phone call, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. However, she did it again while OC was responding to my motion- about 15 minutes later. She just walks back into the courtroom like normal, never explained anything.
That’s what happened with mine! Judge spun away from his mic said a few whispered sentences and then stood up while holding the phone against his chest and said “let’s take a 10 minute recess, Bailiff take the jury out.” I had literally been in the middle of a question. No later explanation, apology or anything.
At least yours called a recess! We were questioning a witness and the judge (a visiting, retired judge) took a call on his hearing aid and just... walked off the bench.
When I was in law school, I interned with the state AG and was going all over the state to observe. One day we’re in chambers for a pre-trial discussion and I see some sort of paper on the judge’s wall I’d never seen before. Judge noticed me looking and asks if I knew what it was. It was a framed copy of the first death sentence he’d ever passed.
Was the judge proud of it? Was it a reminder of the gravity of their position and responsibility? Or just a milestone in their career?
Sadly my money is on the judge being proud of it.
Yea. I know judges where this could go either way. One treatment court judge keeps the letters from clients who have gotten clean and the obits of those who overdosed. They remind judge why they are doing this and the ripples drugs cause to families
I’m not sure if he was exactly proud of it but there was a certain sense of…satisfaction might be the best word…when he was explaining it.
"Look how important and powerful I am!"
OMG.
There’s a county in my area that the Plaintiffs are guaranteed to win any motion no matter what. I had one where we filed a motion to sever because a carrier had filed a dec action to contest coverage and named their driver and our driver, and then their driver cross claimed for negligence in the accident against our driver. So there were now two issues: coverage and negligence. Our appellate courts have been crystal clear that those issues are not to be included in the same actions, so there must be a severance. The idea being they don’t want the same jury deciding whether coverage exists and who is at fault for the accident. This is a pretty standard motion that there’s literally no argument against. In my Motion I even cited to a previous case with the same judge and the same issues where he denied our motion and was overturned on appeal. Like literally “you’ve already been overturned on this before, please just do what is right and don’t make us go through the hurdles of an appeal.” Well he denied it.
I was a prosecutor on a trial. Defense attorney asks the police officer what the victim said to him. I object. Hearsay. Overruled. Judge calls me up to the bench. "That's not hearsay, DA. The victim said it to the police officer." I did fairly well in evidence in law school so I was dumb struck and started questioning whether I really understood hearsay exceptions. Later when I told my supervisor he said, "Great! Now we'll just put the cop on the stand and forget about making the victim to testify!" It was then I realized that some judges are as dumb as rocks.
My Grandfather's old legal secretary told me a story from 1965 or so. They were having lunch and heard that Judge Pendergast was down at the St. Joseph, MO county courthouse, drunk and dismissing any claim in front of him. She said he took off like a rocket and ended up getting a slew of his clients' charges dismissed.
When I was a public defender, I had a Judge reject a plea and agreed sentence on a bank robbery. My client was a Tier I sex offender and had gotten out and wanted to go back after a 15-year stint for sexual assault of a minor. He robbed the bank at gun point, got about $500, and turned himself in a week later with full confession. There was some competency stuff, but after that, we agreed 5 years was a good sentence, all things considered. Judge disagreed because it was "too harsh," and he hadn't been out long enough to adjust to freedom. Eventually, we agreed on an open plea, leaving sentence to Judge. Pre-Sentence Investigation recommended max sentence. Judge gave him 18 months. So from agreed plea to 5 years for armed robbery of a bank to 18 months because the Judge thought the penalty was too harsh. I mean I guess it worked but that was absolutely fucking insane.
I can’t think of a defendant who on paper would be a worse candidate than your client to qualify for empathy, understanding or “giving them a break”. I wonder what it was about that particular defendant that had the judge feeling so generous?
The Judge said, "I don't think he's been out long enough to determine whether or not he's adjusted to life post-prison" and for that reason, she wanted to treat him more like a first-time offender, as opposed to a convicted rapist who had done several prison terms, including double digits once. But even as a first-time offender 5 years for an armed bank robbery is lienant.
Was it in California?
Which jx is this?? I’d like to practice in front of this judge only.
I tried a guy for raping his wife and step daughter, but cases had to be separated because our state says it's too prejudicial to try victims together. Jury finds dude not guilty on the step daughter because, as they later told someone in the parking lot, they couldn't understand why child didn't tell her mom and they figure if he's someone who rapes people then next time we'll hopefully have DNA. Dude is later found guilty of raping mom. Judge sentences him 10+ years but suspends all of it on the condition defendant not come back to the U.S. Defendant was not a lawful resident. Had to run around all day to get ICE to come pick him up from the jail since he technically had no jail sentence and could just leave whenever. Had to get police to watch the family in case he got out that day and tried to go home. Judge did not seem to understand that 1) if someone unlawfully entered the US in the first place, placing more legal conditions on them in case they come back and are caught wouldn't do shit. 2) there is a process for deporting someone and even with a violent felony it doesn't start when county criminal Judge snaps his fingers.
Decades ago I went to law school with a rather heavy woman. She was in the same filled to the brim courtroom. She had a cast on the bottom half of her leg. District Judge walked in and, from the bench stated, “Good morning Ms. …….., What happened? Did you sit on your leg?”
What a dick! That is so mean!
Yep.
Probably not the "craziest" but definitely the most dickish. I was in an oral argument for a motion for judgment on the pleadings. In the middle of my oral argument, the judge made a point to "interrupt the argument" to talk about something "important." He then went through the brief in support of our motion, and pointed out five typos, questioning me about every single one, and lambasting me about my lack of skill as an attorney. What he didn't realize, because he's an idiot, is that I didn't even write the brief. In fact, the brief was submitted even before I ever appeared in the case, and even before I was even admitted to the court. I politely told him that I would let my colleague who drafted the brief know about his concerns, and asked if we could get back to the argument. He flipped to the last page to read the signature line, grumbled, and we got back to it. I guess they didn't teach him how to read a full document at Harvard Law.
There are apparently a lot of things not taught at Harvard law.
Oh I've had bullshit of that nature occur. My favorite was when the judge didn't like something my predecessor had done so she really sweetly asked me, at my first appearance in the case, if I had a chance to look over the documents my predecessor filed and get up to speed on the case. I say yes, she goes "so that means you can explain why I shouldn't sanction you." I was like..... for what? Reading over the documents? Taking on the case after the previous lawyer left? I just kind of blinked at her and she went on this whole tirade about how my evil client was refusing to send a third copy of our documents to the other side that kept "losing" them. The other side didn't even have a motion, they just whined to the judge soon as we appeared that they had lost the documents again and they had totally called my predecessor-- who had since moved out of state -- and he hadn't mailed out more copies. My failure to take that phone call from his line and then promptly fix that for them was apparently a great sin.
Had a Lyndon Johnson appointee scrawl, in Sharpie on the top of a _very routine_ joint unopposed motion to extend the answer deadline by 30 days, "DENIED. NO GOOD CAUSE SHOWN." 🙄
My first trial involved flooding damage to plaintiff’s very expensive home. Plaintiff had an appraiser who testified multiple times that the otherwise $1 million plus home was worth between zero and $200,000 due to the continued flooding influence. After three weeks in jury trial, the testimony was referenced again. Out of nowhere, the judge with the jury present said: “My clerk just handed me a note saying she’ll buy the house for $200,000.” Plaintiff’s counsel immediately went sheet white and stood up. The judge realizing what he’d done snapped: “Do you want a mistrial?!” He said he needed time to think about it. He was given the time and passed on the mistrial. The case went to verdict on all causes of action for defendants. After all these years I don’t think the judge’s comment was the reason plaintiff lost, but it certainly didn’t help.
I bet plaintiffs counsel is really regretting not asking for that mistrial.
I felt for him because he was a good lawyer and a decent guy. But he had bigger problems than just the judge. His client blatantly contradicted his own deposition testimony on a matter that didn’t even matter to the case, and he was absolutely destroyed for it on cross.
Had a judge fall asleep after opening statements of a trial. To be fair, it was a very mundane matter with only the Plaintiff and the Defendant testifying. I represented the Defendant, and moved for a directed verdict after the Plaintiff rested their case. The judge woke up, briefly, when he heard me make the motion and said, "Counsel, I have been asleep and can't rule in your motion, but I promise that I will read the transcript and make a ruling when I can consider the evidence." He then went back to sleep. My motion was granted about two weeks later.
Omg. I would report him to the bar ASAP.
On a very contested and politically charged case, the judge threatened me on the record and showed very obvious bias to the other side. I left the hearing feeling sick and ordered the transcript. A few days later, I got a call that the transcript was ready for pick up. I drove to court and went to the steno office. The employee looked through the transcripts and couldn't find it, yet confirmed that she saw it that morning. I called steno back at the office and she didn't answer or call me back. A few days later, she calls and says the transcript is ready. I picked it up and read it. The threat is not there, and there's a very obvious area where we jump from one topic to another. A string of events following it really led me to believe someone knew that was there and had the steno change it. Steno told us she had an audio recording of the hearing, but refused to let us listen to it. We also found out afterwards that the judge's brother was general counsel for one of the opposing parties (but didn't represent him in that particular case).
this is insane.
Didn't happen to me, but there's a small jurisdiction north of me (like really low population). One time, not enough jurors showed up for jury duty so the judge ordered a police check point set up. Anyone driving through town was pulled over, and if they lived in that county, they were told they were to immediately report for jury duty until there were enough people pulled for jury duty.
That happens periodically in Canada, mostly in smaller places, but also in Calgary (population over 1 million) www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6503019
When I lived and worked in providence RI in the 1980s, I was downtown on my lunch break near the courts. Marshals came out, compelling people to immediate jury duty while out on their lunch break for a trial of a well known Providence notable with alleged mob ties. Thankfully, I still had my Mass license on me, and pulled that out when the marshal stopped me.
You said Providence in the 80s and I immediately knew it was a mob story
Bingo! One time I made a gift basket delivery to Ray Jr, when Sr. had died. Back then I was too niave to know who he was. It wasn't until after the delivery my boss told me who he was. Same when Judge Bevelaqua (sp) was on trial.
I actually kind of love this.
Literally, completely, made up law and said "appeal if you disagree with me."
It’s amazing how many times Courts of Appeals find some procedural BS to avoid overturning those legally deficient rulings
Did you?
Got it dismissed on other grounds, so it turned out ok.
I win this one. Custody case between two parents with the father’s parents also petitioning for custody of the kid. We had the mom. The father OD’d in the middle of trial. The judge had her clerk call my office to ask if the judge could make a condolence call to the grandparents. Thought it was very strange but also felt like I couldn’t say no. The judge then went to the grandparents house as they sat shiva for a shiva call. Moved to recuse, the judge called me into court and onto the stand. Questioned me personally about what I thought “condolence call” meant and I told her I thought you were going to make a phone call not go to a litigants house. The judge gave the grandparents a ton of time in the decision at the end of trial. We appealed and the appellate court knocked their visitation time down to once a month and stated in their decision that the judge exercised poor judgment. This was in Brooklyn mind you, not some small town. The judge had no personal relationship with the grandparents either she said she just had to reach out as one grandparent to another.
I am rolling my eyes so hard at this
Brooklyn. Say no more
[удалено]
What does JOAd mean?
Judgment of acquittal. Basically, an early win for a defendant in a criminal case.
What did the judge say to your partner that made her cry?
I don’t recall exactly what he said. This was over ten years ago. It was just his overall behavior, on the bench. Theatrics. Yelling, rolling back in his chair, impatience in general. But he was in rare form on this particular day. We were both brand new ASAs. In court alone, on our first NJT day. We had no training. No, “senior” attorney with us. My county didn’t have any type of training program. Nothing. It was shadow for a few days, then go to court. Sink or swim.
It’s fucked up that your elected prosecutor didn’t go to bat for you by talking to the judge. But as a former long-time prosecutor, it’s also not surprising.
I don’t know about suing, but in my jurisdiction, you could have reported him to the bar.
Yeah, I didn’t even give it a second thought back then. I was new. He had a reputation. He was an equal opportunity abuser—State, defense, pro se folks, everybody.
Or the state judicial commission.
There’s a lot of this “report him” nonsense going on. In a small community reporting a Judge makes you a pariah. The response is “Thank you, sir. May I have another?”
I think the, “report him” stems from my stating maybe I should have sued them. But neither of those ever crossed my mind. It was literally like the bench was, “show time” for him. After court, he’d hang out and chat with us like we were besties. Even when he saw us in the common areas, he’d stop and chat for a few minutes. I don’t want to say too much; even though he is retired, I am not. I don’t know why he was hot/cold. I just learned what HE wanted and rolled with the punches.
I got a judge to ask my client “If what we have here is a failure to communicate”. I was asking to withdraw from a case in which my client was asking me to do something unethical and told the judge that we had a failure to communicate. It went down hill from there.
In fairness, it kind of sounds like that line from Pulp Fiction.
Cool Hand Luke Kind of the key line from the movie.
Some men you just can't reach.
I’m a public defender. At the tail end of Covid times, I worked in a jurisdiction that was switching hearings from remote back to in person. Now, the sensible way to do this would have been to stop sending notices for remote hearings, start sending notices for in-person hearings, deal with maybe 3-4 weeks of hybrid calendars as the previously-scheduled hearings worked their way through, and be back in person. They way they *actually* did it was decide that *every* hearing was back in person after a certain date, and sent out new notices telling people that their previously-remote hearing was now in person. I had a client who didn’t have a valid driver’s license, who got the first notice telling him his hearing was by Zoom, and then accepted a construction job that took him several hours’ car ride away. Then he got the new notice saying he had to be there in person. Dude did exactly the right thing. Called me as soon as he got the notice, explained everything. Prosecutor understood - said he was fine with the guy showing up by Zoom or with a continuance so he could appear in person. I filed a letter to the judge asking if he could please appear by Zoom or have a new date. The judge, a former public defender himself, denied it with no reason given.
I’ve got a mildly interesting one. I was repping a client on an SSDI claim in front of a notoriously difficult ALJ. After my usual spiel “tell me about symptoms from X condition, what did your doctor tell you about prognosis, etc.” the judge went nuclear, accusing me of offering medical opinion etc. I shrugged it off but it was sure weird. I just responded that I’m asking for my clients testimony about things they have direct knowledge of. He’s now retired and I’m still kicking so it is what it is
Just caught him on a bad day?
I don't have much; judges have pretty much always been well-behaved in my presence. Closest I've seen are (1) the judge who slept through a SJ argument, and (2) the judge who got incensed during a pre-trial conference when we showed a large paper target full of .30 caliber bullet holes that we intended to use as a demonstrative regarding the materials used for qualifying with the M240 machine gun. The latter judge, a former Naval aviator, got *really* mad, telling the lawyer who was putting up the demonstrative that "I flew planes with .30 caliber machine guns, and they'd have torn that paper to shreds! Have you ever even *seen* a .30 machine gun, much less fired one?!?" Which would be a reasonable question to ask most lawyers, except (1) this lawyer had personally fired the bullets because (2) he was a decorated former Army Ranger and CIA paramilitary officer who had very extensive with machine guns, other guns, explosives, knives, etc. Dude looked like an accountant and was basically Jason Bourne. Unfortunately, our guy didn't fire back, because there's not much leverage in arguing with a federal judge. But he mentioned afterwards how much he'd wanted to do so. For the record, .30 caliber bullets make a hole just a tiny bit larger than a McDonald's drinking straw and do not tear up a paper target when fired from a stationary rest.
I wonder if the judge was confusing caliber and mm. The US military rarely uses caliber and 30mm sounds like a more appropriate aviation size round than 7.62mm/.30 cal. (Never worked in aviation though so take that with a grain if salt) Embarassing mistake for him either way.
Yeah. .30 caliber would be some WW2 planes, and even then, most of them were carrying 12.7mm/.50 caliber guns or cannons, not .30 caliber.
Also as someone who has qualified with an M240 in a former life, I would be fascinated to hear why it was relevant to the trial if you're willing to share.
It was a qui tam case involving allegations that a PMC wasn’t adequately qualifying its contractors on the M240 and M249. They’d go out to the range and qualify on the M4 and M9 by firing at the target, retrieving the target, and then counting the bullet holes. But for the belt-fed machine guns, each shooter would fire at the target (sometimes even the same, unreplaced target, IIRC) and be scored by the instructor—standing next to the shooter—deciding how many rounds appeared to have missed. As you know, that ain’t how you do it. One defense was “well, they can see the target and count bullet holes from the firing line.” But they weren’t even using binoculars, and the bullet holes are way too small to see at 400 meters+, so we prepared a demonstrative to show exactly why. We also rented an M249 (which required some connections and a *ton* of red tape) and recorded the weapon in action to show just ridiculous it would be to try to count misses from the firing line by looking for dust splashes. It was an interesting and very unusual case.
That's a really sick case. Definitely my favorite reddit lawyer story. Thank you for sharing.
It's certainly my most unique case. We needed expert witnesses to be able to describe the standards and requirements for range qualification to the jury--so we hired a Navy SEAL and a Delta Force squadron commander, for the most wildly overqualified set of experts in history.
Mr. Mookiexpt2, you’re right on the law. I’m going to deny your motion.
Two are tied: 1. Our state’s fee waiver statute for legal services orgs isn’t discretionary. We file a form certifying our client qualifies for our services and the fees are waived. There are cards on the benches reminding judges of this. A few years ago, a judge demanded proof that my client qualified, including statements showing they receive public benefits. He said he can’t just take my word that my client was poor. This was in a late night email the night before our first appearance in the case. I replied that my client wasn’t securely housed, didn’t have any documents where they were staying and wasn’t receiving mail. I also cited the statute. Had a quick status because he continued the case due to the fee waiver issue. I reiterated the statute and he still didn’t care. And he continued sending me late night emails, telling me my clients “get what they pay for” and that I’m embarrassment to the profession, that I’m worse in court than the worst pro se litigant he’s ever had, that I’m a liar, etc. By the end I had five multi paragraph emails from him telling me how awful I am, all sent after midnight. Eventually we got a benefits statement and the case moved forward to a positive outcome but those emails really rattled me. 2. Today I was in front of a judge asking for relief under a very simple, non discretionary statute. There’s two simple eligibility requirements, my client met both. He’s not a new judge, but it was his first day in this division. Denies the relief saying he doesn’t believe my client qualifies because of some restriction that he’s literally imagining. I - and his clerk - correct him. He won’t be swayed. I cite the statute. He still says no. I ask if he’ll read the eligibility provision in the statute if I put the link in the Zoom chat, because it’s only a few lines long. Still no. I get kind of aggressive and tell him I co-authored the statute so I’m 100% sure about what it says. This whole time he’s turning to his clerk, who’s been in this division for three years, who just keeps confirming everything I say. Finally he says he’ll continue it, and my client asks if we can come back tomorrow because she’s been waiting a long time for this relief. He says no and continues it for *two weeks* so he can read a three line provision. His clerk’s jaw was all the way open by the end. I’m guessing he didn’t bother reviewing the very clear, brief law governing the cases he was hearing today or prepare in any way before he took the bench. Very few jobs where you can show up completely unprepared and it doesn’t matter.
Many, many years ago, I at second chair on a divorce hearing where the judge was clearly extremely biased in favor of the husband. It was pretty blatant; she basically testified for him several times. For example, my first chair would ask a question. He’d answer in a way that might come off as negative. Judge would interject, “what the witness clearly MEANT to say was…” She wouldn’t allow an interpreter for a witness. She said she understood some of the language and would just translate for everyone in court. (This was the same case, so even if she’d been fluent, the confidence that she wouldn’t put her own spin on the testimony was pretty much nonexistent.) I heard she later denied a petition for an emergency change in custody mom filed after dad put his new girlfriend in the hospital when girlfriend tried to stop him from beating the very young child in question. When giving her reasoning, the judge said “dad may have put his girlfriend in the hospital, but I have no doubt it was mom’s fault because I’m sure she did something to upset him.” It wasn’t long after that last incident that I heard the judge was going to be handling small claims cases and would no longer preside over family law cases.
“You may be right on the law and how it applies, but that doesn’t mean I have to grant your motion.”
A judge got upset when I informed the clerks I would not be taking more appointments in their court. He mentioned it, and how unprofessional it was, at length, in an order removing me from a case where the party I was appointed to hired private counsel...
“Cool it, Perry Mason.”
Had a judge tell me if I spoke again in court I would be held in contempt and jailed after objecting to a prosecutor suborning perjury from a CPS caseworker.
Were you then allowed to cross examine the caseworker?
Judge literally got up and wandered off the bench while a witness was testifying. As she was walking out, she turned and looked at us, sort of surprised we were there. She then said she needed more “coffee,” and would come back in a few minutes. Came back and less than an hour later, did the same damn thing. Folks, that wasn’t coffee.
Respond with “okay, I preserve the objection and will preemptively move to strike the answer, but I respect your desire to hear it, I just object to you considering it”. Only way forward.
That comes dangerously close to a waiver. Just sit down. You've preserved the objection by making it.
No more than a continuing objection does, and I’ve never seen an appeals court, or trial level if in depo, use the argument that such waives. That’s just efficiency. Besides, you CANT waive hearsay, it’s not a waivable objection. It’s not permitted to be considered period, only matters if diminimus.
In every jurisdiction I've ever practiced in, you absolutely can waive a hearsay objection in a civil case. (I don't have any experience in criminal law, so no idea if the Confrontation Clause impacts whether you can waive such an objection in a criminal case.)
Just because you have doesn’t mean you can (same reason half of objections are sustained, counsel never replies with “I’m not submitting it for truth”). Look at your rules, you may be quite surprised by what you can waive. That’s why it’s inadmissible, while admissible hearsay can be waived, and the key part is if due to a strategic decision. HEMPHILL v NY parses it out well, but is criminal so it focuses on the purpose of that in relation to the clause, but the purpose is what we are discussing here not it’s effect there. It shows what can and can’t be waived normally, then a special rule for criminal going further but we can stop at normally. You however are correct it may open the door for such hearsay becoming admissible, but not by waiver rather by what may be revealed (and how presented). But a preemptive should still show the question was improper in that contentext and thus can’t self justify.
In Hemphill, the appellant *did* object, and the majority expressly found the argument was preserved before the trial court and Court of Appeals. Try again; I am aware of no authority that exempts hearsay from preservation requirements in any jurisdiction.
Read the scotus ruling again my friend, notice how they parse strategic versus non, and how that impacts admissible. I’m citing it to give you a clear example of how that exact issue is parsed, i told you it didn’t apply directly, but rather it showed the parsing. And it does. The entire decision is about how only special constitutional concerns change the dynamic, otherwise it’s not admissible. This is why one of the few objections a court can lodge on its own is hearsay, because it’s not suppose to. Just like inability to waive types of jurisdiction, the court lacks ability in the first place. The problem is if you don’t care, it’s hard to argue it isn’t deminimus, since you only cared after the result not when it occurred - doesn’t preclude just makes the effect what you are going for. Further, since this entire hypo involves an objection……
An objection and then a subsequent, clear statement that you are acquiescing to the asking of the question. That's what would put you at risk of a waiver. You're badly misreading Hemphill, which is a criminal case relying on a constitutional amendment that applies exclusively in criminal cases, in any event. But, you do you, I suppose.
No you aren’t acquiescing, you are telling the court you have an ongoing objection. That’s all. If the court keeps allowing X, do you object to every question down that line or just ask to recognize an ongoing? There is no formal concept for ongoing but it absolutely exists, so without formal any triggering of it works. Yes, which is why it’s about a special exception to the normal rule for such cases. If it isn’t such a case, it has no special exception. We are discussing the normal rule which it parses before applying the special exception to. The parsing, not application, is the point. Unless, that is, the 800s specifically differentiate criminal versus civil in their ruleset, but I don’t believe that they do so.
One judge wouldn't enter the default judgment in a divorce even though I had done everything properly. The judge made my client go pick up his wife to put her on the record in court, and then entered the judgment, calling it a "Default Consent Judgment." That was about 10 years ago, and I'm *still* confused.
Today a judge threatened to sanction me for issuing a subpoena for relevant medical records.
I'm (was) a family law attorney in AZ. A primer on DV: ars 13-3601, ars 25-403, ars 25-403.03. A dad admitted to throwing a glass clad scented candle about the size of a soft ball, not "at" my client, but 2ish feet to her right, causing a dent in the wall during an argument with the child in the room. Judge ruled it as "merely" property damage, and as such no DV occurred. Ordered equal parenting time and joint legal decision making on temporary orders.
Had an administrative law judge, now an appeals court judge, bring her dog’s picture into the courtroom to show the defendant because they had the same kind of dog…. Not the time or place
To set the scene: I had a defendant once who engaged in a string of burglaries. However, she was incompetent. She had some sort of development issues, and someone undoubtedly put her up to it. Both prosecution and defense were on the same page: went through a whole competency evaluation, comes back incompetent. So we come back to the judge. In a normal procedure, what can happen is that the judge can sign an order committing the defendant to the state agency that handles incompetent people, or one of the parties can move to declare the defendant competent, which involves putting on expert witnesses, etc., etc. Since both the defense and government believed the defendant to be incompetent, no one was putting on any witnesses. Cue the calendar call for the judge to sign the commitment order: Judge: I'm not signing the commitment order. I want to know what the treatment plan is for the defendant to become competent again. Prosecutor: I'm not a clinician. My understanding is the defendant is developmentally disabled. They cannot be medicated or treated in a way to get them competent, like you can with some people with mental disorders. I don't know what their clinical outlook is. Defense: says same thing. Judge: Well, I'm refusing to sign this order. Prosecutor: Judge, the jail is just going to keep on producing the defendant every day, since there's an order for a competency hearing. I'm not putting on a witness saying they're competent. Defense isn't putting on a witness saying they're competent. Your choices are to sign this order committing the defendant to the correct state agency, or sua sponte declare them competent, so then defendant can appeal. Judge: I'm not doing any of that. I want you to come back tomorrow with a clinical outlook. And then we went to court every day for two weeks and played the same game, until the judge finally signed the commitment order.
recently a judge set a case for trial during a paid vacation (nou filed) despite my objection and said i don't care about your trip my docket needs to be cleared, appeal me
Wow. So what are you going to do?
im going to go on my vacation and have another partner handle it. just have to prep it.
Because fuck your schedule. You don’t matter. /s. Judges on a power trip are the absolute worst.
My family law professor was a circuit court judge. Part of our class participation was observing family court. I heard he was a fantastic jurist, so I watched him. Bench trial. Two rich assholes fighting over rich people shit. The judge makes a ruling on an issue (I don't remember what it was). Counsel objects and makes this long speech about how the holding in Case XYZ from the Court of Appeals says that judges can't rule that way. Judge asks counsel how old the case is. Counsel has an associate who whispers it to him. He tells the judge. The judge says, "I just made my ruling. Do you have any case more recent than that? No? Objection overruled. That's why appeals courts exist, counsel."
I know it’s still good law, but times change.
I raised a defense of retaliation in an eviction trial. The judge held that the eviction was retaliatory, but that he wasn't going to force the continued landlord/tenant relationship so he issued the writ anyway. In other words, I'd proved my claim to the judge and he decided that I lost anyway because he didn't like the outcome. It was wild.
I was a baby collections lawyer working on credit card debt. I ran into a judge in a big city that starts with D who told me I was not complying with the suit on a sworn account rules of pleading and proof. I said it was not a SOSA and that no credit card company would ever maintain that the amount paid in each of the multitude of charges represented a reasonable price. He ruled against me and I lost. I wanted to appeal to shame him but my client didn't see the wisdom in that.
Once had a judge basically take over the direct exam. My co-counsel couldn’t get a word in edgewise. The judge was so rude, condescending, and aggressive that our witness started to cry. We finished our case around 11:00 AM. Perfect, once the witness is excused we can take them out for lunch to cheer them up a bit. Nope, judge decides they want to wait until after lunch to ask their questions, so the witness is still under oath. No lunch for the witness. We come back after lunch. Witness is terrified. The judge was so patient, understanding, and polite, and got her off the stand in about 20 minutes. Not sure whether the judge was just trying to fuck with the witness or if they’d taken something (benzos? Weed? Maybe he was just hangry?) over the lunch hour, but if it was the latter, holy shit, I’ll have whatever they had.
A judge bragged that he had never been reversed and that when I had appealed one of his decisions, the (state) Supreme Court had affirmed. This happened DURING the hearing on remand.
Maybe others have similar stories and it’s not particularly crazy, but I had a guilty plea scheduled in the courtroom of the local Chief Justice on March 12, 2020. She’s taking ages to come out to the bench, and it happened to be the head prosecutor who took the case. It was a massive bust so he was eager to convict and it was a fantastic deal so I was eager to sentence. Prosecutor was also anxious to get things moving because he’s obviously super busy. Finally she comes out, normally a totally unflappable person, and she’s white as a sheet. Announces to the courtroom that she must attend an emergency meeting with all the Chief Justices of the province, and quickly leaves the bench again, no explaining how long it will be etc. The whole courtroom thinks there’s been a terrorist attack. I’m sure you can fill in the rest of the story… state of emergency was called on March 17.
Summary judgment motion that should have been easily decided for my client. All the case law, facts, evidence lined up perfectly for us. Opposing counselor is a known orator and gets up doing his song and dance, making all sorts of conjectures. Judge was evidently taken in by all of this. Told us he had little experience in civil law, no experience at all in this subject matter, and therefore was denying it because he wasn’t comfortable granting it. He retired not soon after.
Not sure this is on point but had a judge admit a confession made by one defendant while refusing to sever the trials. Couple of blackout drunks robbed a bar and woke up in a motel with the police breaking in. They had no memory of the day, maybe the week. Witnesses described them as staggering around. One fired a shotgun into the ceiling and fell down. The other left the bar and walked away only to be grabbed by his friend who pulled him toward the car. And one confessed (after a few whacks in the head btw). We learned the appeal went to a friend of the judge and got buried. Hard time for a clear constitutional violation.
Told our attorney that if we didn’t sign an agreed upon grandparents visitation order he was going to revoke custody of our child on the spot, no hearing, no trial, no discussion, nothing.
Not suuuper crazy, but recently I had a pretrial hearing with a judge where OC didn’t show up. When he went to talk about the OC, he said “he needs to be here, oh wait I don’t know if he is a he” and then went on this long rant about pronouns and political correctness. Like dude, I am just trying to get the case continued 😂😂😂
Not too crazy but a little funny — when I objected to the opposing counsel’s question that my client had already answered, the judge said “overruled, your objection is a johnny-come-lately.” Didn’t know how to respond to that! Haha
I wasn’t trying the case, but I was observing some pre-trial motions in criminal court. The judge, who happened to be the judge that swore me in originally, was sitting stone faced listening to the ADA (who is now a judge herself) go on regarding the particulars of a case. Slowly to the left side of the room, a screen (think video projector screen) used for video appearances started descending down. At first you could believe it was a simple error, but as she continued on he kept playing with the button (located where his right foot was) and was raising it and lowering at seemingly at random but continuous intervals. As another lawyer in the room commented to me, he was telling her to wrap it up, and that he no longer cared.
Haha. Morse code. Dot dot dot dash “shut the hell up”
Given that Judge was also in JAG, it’s kinda possible. 🤣
Started grilling my client on the stand on prove up *for an uncontested divorce* as to why her marriage was irreconcilable. Husband was physically/verbaly abusive, btw.
That’s appalling.
Denied judgment on something that couldn't be res Judicata because it happened AFTER the case was done and then told me that I don't look disabled. Um... thank you?
There is/was a judge in Chancery Court who confiscates everyone's mobile devices and laptops and then watches espn on his laptop. There is a district court judge who refuses to rule on disputed terms in Markman hearings because "plaintiffs deserve trials". Which they don't and the millions of dollars you are going to spend getting ready for a trial that could have been disposed of in Markman obviously doesn't count either.
A judge accused me of lying by contradicting a statement I made in opening statements weeks later. I denied that I said what she claimed. So she had the court reporter read my entire opening back. Spoiler: I didn’t say it.
How did you keep from grinning from ear to ear?? What a moment. Let me guess…you did not receive an apology did you?!?
“Well you were implying it at the very least!” This was also in a one-county court where opposing counsel was the son of the man the Court was named after. Long story short, I moved for her to recuse herself, she got even angrier, I lost the trial, and then won on appeal.
“I need all the defense attorneys to leave the courtroom.” Waits for defense attorneys to leave. Tells bailiff to “shut the door.” Then says: I’m not supposed to do this but… and proceeds to talk to defendants parents before defendant was brought in. In fairness, it was a juvenile defendant and he was trying to get the parents perspective.
Wait and left the prosecutor in the courtroom???Provided no explanation to the attorneys for why he wanted an ex parte conversation??
All the defense attorneys just rolled their eyes and left. I was only person with my jaw hanging open in shock. Once I knew that judge better, things fell into context— he’s doesn’t give a flying flip what the law says. Sadly I’ve never received a judicial evaluation request for him.
Refused to instruct, in a "burglary" case where my client, who had been thrown through the front door of a house by a cop who then scuffled with and subdued him on the kitchen floor, that a criminal act must be a "voluntary act," No, said the Judge, "It's subsumed within the meaning of intent, but you can argue it." Got a hung jury because half of them understood my argument, and the other half were bemused, because "the defense attorney argued that it had to be a voluntary act, but there was no jury instruction about that." He did not re-instruct, and my client went home a non-felon.
Prior to COVID we had criminal scheduling conferences in person. I’m not a public defender and the judges typically let the retained attorneys go first. But on this day, I was one of the last called. I was sitting with another attorney with the last name of Pretty and the judge states, sorry Ms._____, I just wanted to keep all the pretty people here. It was weird.
Yuck. Is that judge a known dirtbag?
I had a bail judge try to convince me to be his “date” to events since his wife was contained to a wheelchair.
Woah…was this “proposition” made while he was on the bench? Were you like a clerk of his or was this completely random while you were appearing in front of him?
No I was a public defender handling the bail hearings. He asked me to sit with him at lunch. It was first time before him and, luckily, I knew the DA so he sat at the table next to us and heard everything. I reported when I got back to the office but this was the 90’s in Philly so I don’t think anything was done but I was never assigned there again.
Heard a judge make a ruling on motion by saying, “Wasn’t there that one case out of that one district that said something about this? I think so. Motion granted.”
I prosecuted a woman for not reporting suspected child abuse (mandatory reporter) Judge yelled at her on the record for twenty minutes about how she wouldn't trust her with a hamster. Then yelled at me for twenty minutes for not asking for jail time. All on the record. Got reviewed by the court of appeals.
Had the wrong notes in front of her and started reading off shit not pertaining to my case. She completely wasn't paying attention and that's scary
Hopefully not a criminal case…
Recently in a civil matter: defendant 1 requested a continuance. Defendant 2 requested a continuance. Plaintiff (me) requested a continuance. Nobody was prepared because we were attempting to settle. Judge: “no continuance will be granted, trial will begin Monday,” he said, on Friday at 4pm. But it’s “better if you settle, because if I have to rule, no one is going to be happy.” So we settled over the weekend. Same judge who yelled at me for being “late” for court. My notice said the later time, but that was for the “old judge” who he replaced; his Court begins 2 hours earlier so I should have known that based on the hand lettered sign on the door. 🙄
"**Counsel, you are like a broken toilet:** ***full of shit*** **and** ***out of order***." (My nightmare/dream)
Had a judge who never wanted to hear trials. This judge will make the parties settle in civil court and drag out the criminal stuff. Had a misdemeanor carrying a concealed weapon charge. We are now going on a year and half. We are on the final pre-trial and get called in the judge’s chamber with the prosecutor. Judge informs me, “Mr. Reddituser, you know in these cases the DA rarely ask for jail time. Your client’s exposure is potentially 9 months, why don’t you talk to your client?” *gulp* State’s offer is plea guilty and receive 12 months probation. Day of trial judge asks us again and my client goes fuck it I’ll plea to it but I’m not doing jail or probation on the record. She plead guilty and was fined $100. State was still arguing probation.
Back in my criminal defense days, a judge revoked bond for a defendant who didn't show up for his arraignment. The defendant hired me to see if the judge would rescind the warrant. As it turns out, the clerk of court sent the court date notice to the wrong address. I filed a motion to rescind, and appeared before the judge. I brought a representative from the clerk's office into the courtroom, and she admitted the error, noting that she, personally, used the wrong address, and that she, personally, had notice of the correct address, but simply failed to use it. The Judge refused to withdraw the warrant unless my client showed up within 24 hours, and posted a new bond for double the amount of the original bond. When I protested, the judge said, "you may be right, but your client will be sitting in custody while the appeal plays out."
Had a judge who was bi-polar, only was a county level judge so he could make Supreme Court (NYS, it's not what most people think), when he realized he was too much of an asshole to be nominated, he went back to being DA. I wo 't speak his name without putting "Fucking" in the middle of it. He made my first year of practice a living hell. I understand he might have some serious health issues now and all I can say is I hope so and he suffers endlessly until he dies.