This is absolutely untrue.
Maybe a federal judge on senior status… but none other.
Well, that…and Boston Legal. 
I was a juror in a civil trial-the plaintiff alleged that her employer sexually harassed her. The judge let the thing drag on for 4 days; we started at 10:30 (instead of 8:00 AM), broke for 2 hours for lunch (12-2 PM) then things wound up at 3:30.
So I stand by my assertion-this judge worked (maybe) 3 hours/day). The whole thing could have been presented in 4 hours, deliberated fr 4 hours-two days tops.
Ralph, maybe the judge was in the courtroom with you for 3 hours a day, but that doesn’t mean he worked 3 hours a day. I suspect that they have many duties that are not conducted in the courtroom with a jury present.
First of all, that was not your assertion. You made a blanket statement about trial judges not one specific judge. Also you have no idea what the judge was doing the rest of the time. They frequently hear other matters. Maybe you had one of the lazy ones, and there are many.
Secondly, you have had several lawyers, people who are in court every day, tell you you are incorrect and you fire back with the equivalent of “One time, in band camp…” that’s pretty rich Ralph, even for you.
You would not be one of those folks that thinks that primary grade teachers only work five and a half hour days, would you, making the assumption that since they are in the classroom from 8:30 to 2:30 with a half hour lunch, that is their “work day”?
Since your previous correspondents have been less specific, leyt me make a few points:
The first point is that you have provided no reason for us to believe that your case was the only one over which the judge was presiding. There could easily have been other cases (with sessions of shorter duration) prior to and subsequent to the case in which you participated.
Next, all the prior cases and citations that the lawyers on each side present need to be looked over to be sure that the lawyer was not running a bluff by misinterpreting the earlier rulings.
Then, there are new claims that a lawyer might submit in an earnest effort to get a decision that need to be fully researched for other and conflicting rulings to be sure that the case does not get overturned by a higher courtt on appeal, based on the judge accepting too quickly the arguments of the lawyers.
Beyond that, there is the administrative paperwork each judge must address. Each judgment/opinion must be written out, applying previous citations where necessary. Sentences of “3 to 8” get reviewed every year beginning when the 3 year mark has been reached and the system has to choose whether the imprisoned should be set free or stick around for some more time. (Even when the state has procedures to handle that in the correctional system, the original judge is liable to have to provide an opinion, which requires going back and reviewing the case.)
Many judges also have to provide the administrative personnel work for their own employees (clerks, etc.)
The hours on the bench are simply not the hours a judge works.
Ye Gods, Ralph… You have absolutely no clue how long this judge worked, nor what he does. Do you think because it took the barista at Starbucks 10 minutes to make coffees while you were in the store, that she only works 10 minutes a day? :rolleyes:
The two hour lunch break was probably for your benefit, not his- I imagine he heard at least two motions in chambers during that time, maybe more. Ditto with his hours before 10:30 am. Plus all of the paperwork and administrative stuff judges have to deal with.
Please stop. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about. You sound like a fool now.
I have no proof, but I have witnessed many cases where good lawyers act as if they are the dumbest humans on the planet during the trial while defending a client they know is guilty. In other words, I strongly feel some good lawyers sabotage their own clients.
And this judge arrived at the courthouse at 9:45? And left for home at 4:00?
Like the others above said, in a trial the judge and lawyers generally arrive earlier and leave later than the jury, and spend more time in the courtroom. During the time that you weren’t in the courtroom, the court was almost certainly hearing motions of the parties and discussing matters of admissibility and such that they couldn’t discuss in front of you, as well as disposing of routine pleas and other matters that the court has to take care of. When they broke early it was likely because they’d reached a logical stopping point for the day, e.g. the next witness was going to take a while and they didn’t want to keep you there until 7 p.m. or you’d just heard some complicated testimony and the parties didn’t want to overwhelm you with more. Most judges don’t put in 80 hour weeks of backbreaking labor, but they sure as heck don’t put in 3 hour days.