May I approach, your Honor?
May I approach your Honor?
Which is it? Also, must the judge give permission to be approached in all circumstances or is it just for the hush-hush conferences between judges and attorneys during trial? Is the bench such a revered symbol of liberty that a simple attorney must be granted authorization to near it?
I would guess it’s “May I approach, Your Honor.” Short for “May I approach the bench.”
I always assumed that the request is made formally because the conference is going to take place outside the hearing of the rest of the court, not merely because the judge is so high and mighty.
I’ve always said “Your Honor, may I approach the bench?”
Part of it is the formality. Nowadays, too, sadly, you want everybody in the courtroom, especially the bailiff sitting over there with his gun, to realize that you are supposed to be doing what you are doing and moving where you are moving, so that nobody gets nervous.
There’s a portion of the courtroom called the “well,” which is between the bench and the attorneys’ tables, which you are not supposed to cross, ever. Don’t ask me why, I have no clue.
Human beings are creatures of ritual – that’s why religion appeals to us so much. The courtroom may be one of the last places where we encounter certain rituals that are common to all of us.
Your Honor, I rest my case.
-Melin
Courtroom vary. In Illinois, state trial courts have become fairly informal. During all but actual trials (and about 98% of court appearances are for something other than trial), the attorneys stand right in front of the bench. The only time I might say “May I approach the bench, Your Honor” in this context is if I want to address the judge and my case isn’t being called at that moment. In Federal District Court, things are MUCH more formal.
Well, duh, I should have known that. While we’re on the subject, can anyone recommend some reference material with an overview of courtroom terms, protocols and the like?
perhaps off topic, but why do you want to approach the bench? If it’s a public hearing, why is there a private conference between the judge and lawyers? It’s not done here in Canada, and I’ve always wondered about it when watching Law and Order.
jti, usually people ask to approach the bench during a hearing so that they can produce bags and bags of mail addressed to Santa Claus and delivered to the insanity hearing of Edmund Gwenn.
It’s a highly effective trial procedure, from what I understand.
The Dave-Guy
“since my daughter’s only half-Jewish, can she go in up to her knees?” J.H. Marx
Usually, it’s because there is an issue to discuss that the jury shouldn’t hear. One example: Under the rules of evidence which govern trials, certain testimony is inadmissible. One type of evidence excluded is evidence which is irrelevant to the case, but which might prejudice the jury if it is heard. Parties to a case can keep the jury from hearing this evidence by making an appropriate motion to the judge. This can be done before trial (through a motion in limine) or during trial in a sidebar conference.
Sure, I understand the need to keep it from the jury until the judge has ruled - but doesn’t the public have the right to hear the issue argued, pro and con, and the judge’s decision? Here, if the judge thinks there is the need for a discussion on the point, the jury is excluded, and counsel argue it from the counsel table, with the public able to hear the full debate.
jti- On the other hand, the defendant has a constitutional right to a quick and speedy trial, which isn’t well served by lawyers making motions, having the jury get up and leave the room, having the motion argued, and then waiting for the jury to come back into the room and get seated. Just a WAG, though.
JMCJ
“John C., it looks like you have blended in very nicely.”
-UncleBeer
John-
A “speedy” trial refers to the right to have the matter tried quickly after the date of the alleged offense, as opposed to rotting in jail while the matter is pending. Once the trial starts though, there is no per se right to have the trial itself be speedy. That is, the prosecution doesn’t have only 30 minutes to present its case or else the defendant goes free. Besides, Defense attorneys make motions too (frequently in attempts to exclude the prosecution’s evidence) so a Defendant can hardly complain while trial time is consumed ruling on such motions.
Another good question is: “Why doesn’t anyone ever smack the shit out of Judge Judy?” 
“Teaching without words and work without doing are understood by very few.”
-Tao Te Ching
Finally, a kindred soul! I hate that low-life bithch Judge Judy. If she gets so pissed off by people being urruly and speaking out of turn, why cannot she behave in an orderly and civilized manner herself. It scares me that she is a real judge. Koch is a much better pop, day time play judge if you ask me.
You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what is right.
–Lyndon B. Johnson
jti:
Yes, the public would generally have the right to hear what is being said in bench conferences. However, I think the way it’s handled is pragmatic – often, there are numerous issues which require a bench conference during the course of a trial. It would be impractical to get the jury out of the courtroom every time one of the attornies wanted to argue a question of evidence.
However, bench conferences, like everything else that occurs during a formal court proceeding, are recorded and (usually) transcribed. The public would have access to these records. If there were a pressing need for the public to have contemporaneous access to bench conferences, public meetings/records laws might require the judge to make such an arrangement. However, it’s difficult to imagine what that need might be.
Plunging like stones from a slingshot on Mars.
There’s nothing I hate more than seeing a judge tell someone how to live their life. As far as I’m concerned, a judge is there to interpret the law and make decisions based on that law, not to provide people with counseling or moral advice. Many judges go way past this boundary and it makes me sick to see them get away with it. And, no, my experience is not just from TV!
“Teaching without words and work without doing are understood by very few.”
-Tao Te Ching
frankd6,
I guess it must just be a difference in the courtroom culture - in Canada, if it’s something the jury shouldn’t hear, they leave, and the matter is argued right away. I’ve never heard anyone worry that it takes too long.
On a related issue, do you actually have motions argued in private, in the judge’s chambers? (Again, my inquiry stems from an intense study of L&O, so if it’s off the wall please have pity.) That’s just not done here; motions are argued in open court, never in the judges’ chambers. (I’ve been at the bar more than 10 years, and have only been in judges’ chambers once, on a case-management matter.)
I learned a valuable lesson about courtroom etiquette when I was 13, shortly after I’d committed the heinous crime of cutting across a city parking lot on my Honda.
The judge said, “boy, you look a little wet behind the ears to be getting four tickets”. I replied that I was only thirteen, and that it would never happen again because I was grounded forever, and besides, my dad had chained the Honda to a post… and planned to sell it. The judge and the cop really enjoyed hearing about my miserable plight, and they both chuckled through smug grins, over the “justice” of it all.
My precious Honda was gone, my freedom was gone, life, as I knew it, was over… and they thought it was funny.
Then, he asked me if I was still in school. (duhh)
I clearly remember thinking, “no, you smart-ass old bastard, I quit when I was ten” …but I bit my tongue and said, “yes sir”.
He let me slide on the tickets, and I got to keep the Honda.
Lesson: Just shut up and tell them what they want to hear.
…and never run from the police … unless you’re sure that the exit by the creek is open.
Life is like a bowl of Glosette raisins and rabbit turds…
The general, formal rule in every courtroom I’ve ever been in (in several states as well as federal courts) is that you DO NOT approach without permission.
That said, at least in state court, I’ve had the experience at the beginning of a trial where the judge will advise us that it is not necessary to request permission to approach each witness every time; s/he grants that permission in advance. I’d still never approach the bench, though, without asking permission.
-Melin