I remember Judge Wapner of the ancient version of Peoples Court.
He was always calm, always no nonense, stern but never excited, and tried to be fair.
This is how all traffic court judges are, the only judges I’ve watched first hand, other than Judge Ito.
But these new judges, all fo them, Judy and Joe Brown and the one on People’s Court now, are all so flaky.
They not only allow inadmissable evidence, like rumors and dishing dirt about the plaintiff’s lovers, but they encourage it. They will start off with, not “Was this sale of a car to you in writing?”, but “Why couldn’t your boyfriend buy you a car?”
Then they allow heated insults to pass, get mad at the insults, scold the side witnesses, solicit opinions from the bailiff, and then base the verdict on things like saying “I’m convinced she meant well” instead of legal topics, like “The landlord has a right to dispose of abandoned property”.
Are there really judges like these? Where, everwhere? Or is it all just entertainment unrelated to real courtrooms?
Although, to be fair, Judge Judy isn’t nearly as bad as the rest of the bunch. She will insist on evidence more often than not.
The thing to remember here is that, as much as there is a real case here to begin with, the parties involved have essentially agreed to pull the cases out of the court system in favor of binding arbitration. The arbitrator is Judge Judy, or Joe Brown, and we get to see the proceedings.
Arbitration is a looser process than a court of law. I don’t know that it is as loose always as what you see of those shows, but there you go.
They used to say as much at the beginning of People’s Court, back in the Wapner days: “Both parties have agreed to dismiss their court cases, and have their disputes settled here, in our forum: The People’s Court!”
Remember also that this is a “simulated Small Claims Court”, which is a lot less formal than a real Municipal, Family or Superior court. Small Claims is similar to Traffic Court, which most of us have had to endure at one time or another in our lives.
I have been to Small Claims and the judge, while a lot less formal than in a criminal court, hasn’t been as confrontational (and talkative) as the ones on TV. They have large dockets to get through so the less talking by everyone the faster they can arrive at a decision and move on to the next case.
BTW, my brother is a Superior Court Judge and he laughs at these shows whenever he happens to see them. He said judges that would argue with, or lecture a plantif or defendent wouldn’t last too long on the bench. Every word that is spoken in court is taken down for the record so judicial abuse is fairly easy to document…
In the Wapner days, the litigants were paid scale for their appearance. I’d be willing to bet the new ones are, too, so probably they’re not risking all that much.
They don’t have the same outlook, but Former Judge Maria Lopez of Massachusetts does have the same style as Judge Judy. She was know for whipping of her glasses and going on a monologue tirade on many occasions.
I have some experience in Small Claims Court in New York City, and in a lot of ways it is quite similar to the old Judge Wapner people’s court. There is a lot of emphasis on what documentation is available, what do the written estimates say and the like. Under New York State law, a small claims judge is only required to do “substantial justice”, rather than apply the law in all of its details, so things like evidence rules are significantly relaxed, particularly when parties are not represented to lawyers (and the judges do like to stick it to the lawyers present just a bit, though my guess is that a large part of that is showing the unrepresented party that they are not favoring the side with the lawyer). In the end, the judges generally do what Judge Wapner did, apply the law mixed with a good dose of common sense and fairness.
In non-small claims court, there is (obviously) a lot more emphasis on procedural rules. Although judges allow unrepresented parties some latitude, the crazyness that goes on in the current “judge” shows is simply absent. Some New York judges, however, will use varying degrees of emphatic language (sometimes even moving to tirade or rampage) against lawyers (and, rarely, parties), who are flouting the rules or being particularly recalcitrant. Sometimes judges will also try to browbeat lawyers into giving in on settlements or concessions when the judge feels the lawyer is being obstinate. You learn to stand your ground and take it when you are before screamer judges. (On the other hand, when you work up a normally calm judge, it really means something.) Judges also get annoyed when the lawyers or parties snipe at each other rather than focusing on the issues. Most often, however, judges are quite civil to lawyers and parties, especially when they are being reasonable and trying to work together as they should.
One other factor in the TV craziness is that TV judges do not have the power to hold litigants in contempt of court. If real-life litigants acted up and talked out of turn the way the ones on TV do, they’d wind up in a jail cell.
I’ve been told, however, that nobody really loses on these shows. IOW, the show actually pays any payments/damages awarded. No cite, I may be wrong, and welcome any correction. I was told this by a guy I worked with one time who was once scheduled to appear on one of these shows.
Yeah, I’ve heard that about judge judy too, not scale necessarily, but that the money the producers of the show was paying both sides was usually enough to cover most of the damages being sought, so that was tilting the overall odds in favor of both of them, and a good reason to go onto the show if they thought your case was entertaining enough to make good TV.
I once read the credits at the end of People’s Court. The fine print said that there is a fund out of which both parties are paid, but the award (if any) is paid from it first. So basically, if the fund is $5000, and the plaintiff is awarded $2000, each litigant will be paid $1500 for their appearance.
I would imagine that the Plantiff would receive the full $5000 and the defendant $3000, or something along those lines, else it’s an easy scam. Make a claim against your buddy, have him thow the defense, and collect $5000 each.
I’m a municipal court magistrate who often hears small claims cases, and **Billdo ** has it just about right.
Remember, always, that these shows are intended to be entertaining, just as much (although with less good-looking people) as LA Law, The Practice, or Law and Order. Take it all with a grain - or seven - of salt.
Actually there was a case a year or so back about someone who tried to do this, so they must do some background investigation before they accept cases. Sorry, no cite, it was a blub on the news. No details, but it sounded like a scam just to collect the fees.
No, what Susie Derkins meant was that the awarded sum is paid to the winner of the trial, then the remainder of the fund is split equally among both parties. It’s not getting $5000 each. This resembles your proposal, but also makes the sum both parties get depend on the outcome of the trial.
A year ago I was in small claims court in Hamtramck, a small town surrounded by Detroit. Before starting to hear the cases, the judge told the whole courtroom that if one party interrupted the other, the interrupter would automatically lose the case. I don’t know the legality of that, but it sure as hell made people civil to each other. I won my case but didn’t get as much money as I was owed under law b/c the judge said my landlord wasn’t a ‘slumlord’ and didn’t deserve the full penalty the law demanded. My landlord’s longterm girlfriend was by his side and is also an elections clerk for Hamtramck. :dubious: (I got my security deposit back plus court costs, so no real penalty to make my landlord change his ways.)