Back in the early days of The People’s Court, Judge Wopner handled each case the way judges are supposed to work.
- Read the complaint in chambers and identify the issue to be decided
- Consult the relevant laws and relevant case law
- Start the case
- Make sure the plaintiff is sticking to the information in the complaint
- See if the defendant will stipulate any of the facts in the complaint
- ask probing questions where the answer could be relevant to the decision but wasn’t mentioned in the complaint
- ask for documentation to support the assertions in the case or to defend against the charges
- ask if there are any witnesses with relevant evidence (preferably one without a personal interest in the outcome)
- If it’s he said/she said, ask a few questions to test for honesty and reliability
- Make the decision
- Review the law and case law again if the answer isn’t obvious
- If there is some issue of fact still remaining, return to the room and ask that specific question
- write down the ruling stating the legal basis of the ruling
- Announce the decision
- explain the relevant law and the decision
- Ask the parties if they understand the decision – but not open the discussion to start rearguing the case
- Talk to Doug Lleyelyn (that’s just for TV and the entertainment value)
Judge Judy and later “Judge” shows have increasingly strayed from the way the law is supposed to work. Rather than dealing with the law, the judge would probe for people’s feelings and emotions, and ask irrelevant questions for their entertainment value. The “decision” would only be “You Win”, and no reference all to the law – just the judge’s feelings about what was fair or based on judgement over which person they didn’t like.
President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee appears to belong to the Judge Judy school of legal decision making.
Tags: Supreme Court