Can plaintiff or defendant question judge? I watch a lot of Judge Judy, and many of you know its irritating. She has said she cannot look into the evidence or she has so many other work to do. How can a judge behave like this to public? Is she a public servant? How can a judge say what ever they want and nobody can react? Is that the law? Nobody over the judge in the court? I saw another real court video, a girl said &quot;adios&quot; to the judge and the fine amount was doubled. Any where written how to behave in the court and what all things anyone can say?
First, Judge Judy is not a real court. Judith Sheindlin was a real judge, but then she retired to be on TV. The show depicts arbitration proceedings, which both parties agreed to. If both parties want it, and if he agrees, you can have arbitration proceedings where R. Lee Ermey presides and keeps order by means of screaming at you and ordering calisthenics on the spot (where failure to comply means you lose automatically). Judge Judy is not a public servant on the show; she's a TV personality. That said, real judges have substantial power to keep order in the courtroom and to enforce proper decorum. Part of proper courtroom decorum is that you respect the authority of the court, and that you respect the judge. Failure to do so can be criminal contempt of court. Contempt of court in the presence of the judge is the only situation I'm aware of in American law where you can do something wrong and be pronounced guilty of a crime and sentenced to jail on the spot without the ability to even say anything in your own defense beforehand (some places require opportunity to be heard before sentence is imposed or the order becomes final, but not all do). Part of the point of this is that courts only have authority because people are willing to obey them; one of the actual reasons for summary direct criminal contempt is to vindicate the authority of the court. If you're acting like the court can't tell you what to do, the court can send you to jail to make the point that they absolutely can tell you what to do (in practice, jail sentences are often commuted when the contemnor apologizes). With the "Adios" thing, that wasn't a fine: it was bail. Bail is the amount you pay to guarantee you'll show up in court later (if you show up you get it back; if you don't the court keeps it). Disrespecting the court means they're less convinced you will show up because of a sense of obligation, so they can increase bail to add financial incentive. In his personal capacity, a judge can be criticized like anyone else. In his courtroom, a judge is not the peer of anyone else in the room. The judge is the court; he represents the law (judges used to be stand-ins for the King; now that the US is based on the rule of law rather than the rule of a King, judges are stand-ins for the law). A phrase sometimes used is that you may or may not respect the judge, but you respect the robe. So, yes. If you think a judge is disrespecting you, you are expected to take it and not show disrespect right back. You are expected to show respect to the judge, to the proceedings, and to the other people in the courtroom. Judges occasionally abuse this; there are stories of "black robe fever," in which a judge goes off on someone in the courtroom for no good reason. But that doesn't excuse anyone else in the room from their duty to show respect to the judge while in court.
There are a variety of reasons a judge might be disqualified. It could be that the judge was previous an attorney who represented someone (defendant, victim, key witness) involved in the case, it could be that the judge was a family member or former employer of the defense attorney, it could be that someone close to the judge or the judge personally was a victim of another crime committed by the person, it could be that the defendant or the defendant's family was a personal or family friend. The prior involvement in the protective order case could be a factor as well. The record isn't detailed enough to know. "Held" in this context means that the hearing scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on that date noted was actually conducted, rather than being continued or vacated for some reason. Your guess is as good as mine regarding "CFW" and "DB" in this context. My best guess for DB is "daily booking" and CFW might be either the removed or replacement judge's initials (e.g. Carol Francis Wilson) but those are just wild guesses. Neither appears on a list of Oregon Department of Corrections acryomns or this criminal background check abbreviation list, or this list of Oregon law enforcement abbreviations. The only matches on this list of law enforcement abbreviations and none of the matches to DB (dog bite, dead body, detective bureau) make a lot of sense in this context.
You're wrong in the first sentence So I agree, that a hung jury is in fact reasonable doubt by lack of concurrence, the defendant should be acquitted. No. A hung jury just means they can't decide on any item they should decide about, for whatever reason. Maybe they all want to see the defendant guilty but can't decide if it is murder 1st or 2nd degree, or one of them is just trying to stay out of work and just is contrarian to whatever the jury deliberates, wether guilty or not guilty. In either case they can not tell the judge what they can't agree about. They can only tell the judge that they can't agree on a verdict. Since the judge can't assume anything about the deliberations, he can only reset trial and swap the jury for one that actually might be able to decide. The whole Jury is tossed out, their deliberations don't matter anymore - their hung state does not influence the re-trial.
A witness is not evidence, but what a witness says (their testimony) may be evidence. Or, the body of a person who happened to be a witness is evidence. I suspect that there is a translation problem. It is always physically possible to try pay a person to lie and AFAIK never legal: the person who lies and the person who induces the lie will be punished by law. The witness who testifies will have to swear that their testimony is the truth.
The answer to this question will be almost entirely informed by the why that you've asked us not to consider. If the prosecutor or judge is a witness, the defendant should be able to call them, but that also means they would have to withdraw from the case under either Rule 3.7 or Canon 3. If the defendant believes the prosecution is tainted by some improper motive, the defendant may raise that objection under Crim. R. 12, but he must do so pretrial. I can't think of any circumstances where the defendant could question the judge or prosecutor in the jury's presence.
Telling to &quot;shut up&quot; may amount to misconduct: Judicial Conduct Investigations Office can investigate &quot;offensive language&quot;. Otherwise, judges are in charge of everything that happens in the courtroom. They have full powers to limit time that a party can speak and tell to sit down and be quiet. Helpful article: Judicial conduct: when it goes wrong
Generally speaking, courts take whatever time they need to write their decision and then release it close to immediately. In cases where a judge believes she has the information she needs, she may rule "from the bench," announcing a decision and entering an order for the parties to comply, and then follow up with a written order later. The research process is fairly open-ended, but legal research databases are pretty advanced, and a good researcher can generally get his hands on the vast majority of what he'll need in very short order. But practically speaking, there are few limits on how long that process takes. A litigant who was growing impatient could seek a writ of procedendo to force a court to move faster, but my experience indicates that most attorneys wouldn't attempt that move unless a decision had been pending for at least a year with no action, which would be unusual.
The only relevant case heard by SCOTUS is Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224, where a federal judge was tried and convicted for actual crimes, but would not resign his position so continued to draw his salary. The key legal question was whether the matter is "justiciable" (meaning, not a political matter but a legal matter). Nixon's argument was that Senate Rule XI violates the Impeachment Trial Clause, and the court held that the question (more specifically what it means to "try") is nonjusticiable. White &amp; Blackmun, and Souter, wrote concurring opinions (which might be called on in a subsequent impeachment case) that reminds the reader (and future court) what was not part of the holding of the court, and what might therefore allow future impeachment review. White writes The Court is of the view that the Constitution forbids us even to consider his contention. I find no such prohibition and would therefore reach the merits of the claim. I concur in the judgment because the Senate fulfilled its constitutional obligation to "try" petitioner. He observes that the Senate has very wide discretion in specifying impeachment trial procedures and because it is extremely unlikely that the Senate would abuse its discretion and insist on a procedure that could not be deemed a trial by reasonable judges. But, I would prefer not to announce an unreviewable discretion in the Senate to ignore completely the constitutional direction to "try" impeachment cases. When asked at oral argument whether that direction would be satisfied if, after a House vote to impeach, the Senate, without any procedure whatsoever, unanimously found the accused guilty of being "a bad guy," counsel for the United States answered that the Government's theory "leads me to answer that question yes." Tr. of Oral Arg. 51. Especially in light of this advice from the Solicitor General, I would not issue an invitation to the Senate to find an excuse, in the name of other pressing business, to be dismissive of its critical role in the impeachment process. Souter in his opinion states that One can, nevertheless, envision different and unusual circumstances that might justify a more searching review of impeachment proceedings. If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results, convicting, say, upon a coin toss, or upon a summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply" 'a bad guy,'", judicial interference might well be appropriate. In such circumstances, the Senate's action might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite the prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence. In other words, review of an impeachment is largely but not entirely off the table, at least until SCOTUS declares that impeachments are completely unreviewable, no matter what, period (unlikely to ever happen).