|
In TV dramas and on Judge Judy (who seems like the antithesis of a
normal judge) the judge is always being stern with the lawyers.
After a sidebar when one lawyer is still pleading his case on some
point, the judge always growls "Step back" like he will whip the
lawyer if doesn't move quickly. The judge barks at lawyers for other
reasons too.
And the lawyers are always asking improper questions and when the
oother side objects, they say, "Withdrawn".
Are real courts anything like that?
I've been to landlord-tenant 3 times in NY, small claims two times,
plus traffic court maybe 3 times (I was the plaintiff every time
except in traffic court) plus I watched cases before and after my own,
and when I had an afternoon free I watched a federal trial in Foley
Square in NYC**, and I watched a lawyer friend of mine testify in an
interstate contracts case in federal court in Greenbelt or Beltsville
Maryland, and nobody was like that. Everyone got along, and no one
asked improper questions.
Isn't my experience at these low level courts a lot more like all the
courts than the way they portray it on TV?
**That federal trial was great. I asked the guard at the front door
for a good trial and he sent me to this one. It was mail fraud, but
it had all the aspects of a tv show. The alleged defrauder was
sleeping with his secretary, and she was a witness in the case, and
maybe a defendant. I really wanted to go back the next day to see
more, but couldn't.
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:19:08 -0400, mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
In TV dramas and on Judge Judy (who seems like the antithesis of a
normal judge) the judge is always being stern with the lawyers.
After a sidebar when one lawyer is still pleading his case on some
point, the judge always growls "Step back" like he will whip the
lawyer if doesn't move quickly. The judge barks at lawyers for other
reasons too.
And the lawyers are always asking improper questions and when the
oother side objects, they say, "Withdrawn".
Are real courts anything like that?
Sometimes, but usually not.
I've been to landlord-tenant 3 times in NY, small claims two times,
plus traffic court maybe 3 times (I was the plaintiff every time
except in traffic court) plus I watched cases before and after my own,
and when I had an afternoon free I watched a federal trial in Foley
Square in NYC**, and I watched a lawyer friend of mine testify in an
interstate contracts case in federal court in Greenbelt or Beltsville
Maryland, and nobody was like that. Everyone got along, and no one
asked improper questions.
Isn't my experience at these low level courts a lot more like all the
courts than the way they portray it on TV?
Often, low level courts like this are filled with attorneys and judges (and
sometimes even parties) who all know each other and have to deal with
each other on a regular basis. The judges may be drawn from the same
pool of attorneys as the ones practicing before them. Maybe they golf
together. Considering how much time they all spend in court together,
it's in their interests to keep things on as collegial and pleasant basis as
possible.
As the stakes rise, though, and as the adverse interests in question are
more adverse, or bias arises, the atmosphere can get a lot more heated.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 29, 9:19=A0am, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
In TV dramas and on Judge Judy (who seems like the antithesis of a
normal judge) the judge is always being stern with the lawyers. =A0
After a sidebar when one lawyer is still pleading his case on some
point, the judge always growls "Step back" like he will whip the
lawyer if doesn't move quickly. =A0 The judge barks at lawyers for other
reasons too. =A0
And the lawyers are always asking improper questions and when the
oother side objects, they say, "Withdrawn".
Are real courts anything like that?
<Snip>
I once had to go to court many times over the same issue (a commercial
dispute) and apart from the fact that it was a lot more boring than
anything on TV, there was a staggering amount of adjournments and
waiting around. One party or the other always managed to find some
reason to not proceed.
This was in Johnson County, Kansas about 12 years ago.
Another thing I was surprised by was that everyone knew each other,
except for the lawyers for my (very large) company. They were from out
of town, and they seemed to have a hard time navigating the local
customs, until they gave up and hired a local firm. Suddenly things
started moving again. According to our lawyers (some big name firm in
New York) sometimes the locals are intimidated by big names, sometimes
they are resentful and obstructive.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 31, 7:39 am, TheMightyAtlas <themightyatl...@gmail.com> wrote:
This was in Johnson County, Kansas about 12 years ago.
Another thing I was surprised by was that everyone knew each other,
except for the lawyers for my (very large) company.
The only thing surprising about that to me is that it would be
surprising to you. Why would a NY lawyer on his (probably) first
trip to Johnson Co. KS be anything but a stranger to the hometown
crowd -- judges as well as lawyers who probably all went to school
together since kindergarten and have been practicing law in front of
each other for years as well as maybe even having family ties?
They were from out of town,
Not just out of town, but out of state, as you say later, and that
makes a big difference legally as well as informally.
and they seemed to have a hard time navigating the local customs,
I'm surprised, as you don't seem to be, that a NY firm were even
allowed to do this in KS, without hiring local counsel to appear in
court alongside them, and to advise them on local procedure, something
almost all jurisdictions require when a lawyer who is not admitted to
the bar in that state wants to try a case there. However, rules vary
as to how much involvement local counsel must have, and whether local
counsel needs to be present at every hearing or whether the out-of-
state lawyer can legally appear in court without such a guide. So
that may be what they did, after just getting a local lawyer to move
for their temporary admission to the KS bar _pro_haec_vice_ ("for this
time only").
until they gave up and hired a local firm.
Well Duh. They may have thought they could just read the KS rules of
procedure and be OK. But every court has its own quirks and methods
even if the state has a uniform set of rules that is supposed to (and
does) apply everywhere. The local procedures may be a supplemental
set of written rules, or simply unwritten protocols that the locals
know about and which indicate what approaches will get the best
results while following the statewide written rules to the letter. If
you want to get anywhere fast, you have to do _both_ (follow the
written rules, and do it the way the local court likes it).
Saying they "gave up" makes it sound like they were fighting a noble
fight against a corrupt or incompetent system under losing odds, but
IMO they were just being stupid to try going it alone. It's one thing
to play explorer of uncharted waters, but it's another thing entirely
to refuse local help navigating the practice shoals when it is readily
available. Sir Edmund Hilary had the assistance of Sherpas when
climbing Everest for the first time and couldn't have done it without
them. Lewis and Clark had Sacajawea for a guide. What exactly did
these NY lawyers think they would be able to accomplish, stumbling
about blindly in the shadowy corners of a procedural maze they
wandered into in KS without a clue as to where they ought to be going
next and with no one around familiar with the layout to help them find
the right exit?
Suddenly things
started moving again. According to our lawyers (some big name firm in
New York) sometimes the locals are intimidated by big names, sometimes
they are resentful and obstructive.
I'll grant it as true that "hometowning" (the nickname for what the NY
lawyers accused your local bar of doing) to one degree or another
sometimes happens to out-of-town lawyers esp. if the opposing party is
a local guy and the out-of-town lawyers represent an out-of-town party
trying to sue the local guy, or being sued by the local guy. Such
bias is a fact of life among jury pools everywhere, and lawyers and
judges are human too, so even if they are trying to be fair there is a
natural tilt in that direction. But that can happen even to a big
city lawyer from the same state, going into a rural area, where the
bar admission rules permit him to practice statewide without having to
hire local counsel. Going into a different state, where the rules of
procedure are different and separate bar admission is required, is a
whole 'nuther ball of wax.
Or, it could just be that your firm's arrogant, preening NY big firm
lawyers thought they were so much smarter than a bunch of KS hicks
that they could march right in and tell the locals how law oughta be
practiced even though they were completely clueless about the local
rules of procedure, formal and informal, and didn't even feel the need
to hire a local lawyer to help them navigate the shallows and
sandbars. Any mariner will tell you that attempting to get a big
ship into a strange harbor without a local pilot is a good way to run
her aground. Which sounds like what they did.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
|
| |
| |
On Mar 29, 8:19=A0am, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Isn't my experience at these low level courts a lot more like all the
courts than the way they portray it on TV?
I'm not an attorney, and I've only done one stint of jury duty. Now,
around here, when you're on jury duty, you're on the panel for a few
months. You're called in every time a jury is needed. Then when your
time is over, you're done. During that time, you see more than one
judge in action.
My experience is that a lot depends on the judge. We had two judges
that dealt with most of our cases. One was a very laid back, pleasant
person, who wanted to make the experience educational for the panel
members. He was also very much aware that we were being torn away
from our lives to perform jury duty, and was determined to make the
experience as pleasant and interesting as possible. We could walk
right up to the bench, chat with him, kid around, etc. At one point,
I had a question about a technicality in the voir dire (I was drawn
from the panel, but excused for cause). After the trial was over
with, I spent a few minutes gabbing with him at the bench.
The other judge was the polar opposite; a very stern, arrogant,
authoritarian person. My experience, as well as that of several other
panel members, was that if you needed to talk to him (none of us
really *wanted* to), you had to ask permission to approach, etc. (ok,
no problem there), and that whatever answer he gave was usually
phrased in the most condescending way he could phrase it (big problem
there; my taxes pay his salary).
The bailiff, clerk, etc. seemed to take their cue from the judge.
When judge #1 was on the bench, everyone was relaxed and informal.
When judge #2 was sitting there, everyone was very much by the book.
Other things I noticed that aren't like TV ...
1) Unless the case involved one of O. J. Simpson's biannual brushes
with the law, there won't be a big audience; the only people in the
courtroom are the people who have to be there. Back in the old days,
when Abe Lincoln was still practicing law and "circuit court" meant
that the judges and lawyers would actually "ride the circuit," court
day was often a big part of the local entertainment; but it hasn't
been that way since television was developed (or for that matter,
probably not since Marconi invented the radio).
2) The only people wearing coats and ties, or the female equivalent
thereof, are the judge, clerk, and attorneys.
3) Actual trials are pretty rare. Civil cases are usually settled
before what would have been the trial date, so the jury panel is
rarely even called in. Criminal defendants, on the other hand, seem
determined to fight it out until the last possible moment, then accept
plea bargains. On most criminal trial dates -- I didn't keep exact
count, but I'd say it was over 90% of the time -- we'd get called in,
they'd get ready to select a jury ... then the attorneys, judge, and
defendant would start huddling, whispering, etc. ... then they'd all
go off into some back room, and about an hour later they'd come out,
thank us for our time, and announce that they didn't need us after
all.
4) Among actual trials, long ones are rare -- many (perhaps most?)
take only one day.
5) My experience, as well as that of several of my fellow jurors, is
that real trials aren't that interesting except to the people directly
involved. Which may explain more than anything else the discrepancy
with television; TV shows tell stories, and so need dramatic moments,
climaxes and denouements, etc.
Rob
|
| |
| |
|
