If a a defendant is tried by a judge

If a defendant waives his right to a jury trial and the judge ends up handing down a verdict, does the judge announce the verdict immeadiatley after all of the evidence has been presented, or does he go back to his chambers to deliberate?
I believe juries are told not to form any opinions about the case until all of the evidence has been presented. Does a judge operate under the same restriction?

To answer your second question first, yes, a judge is supposed to hear all the evidence before he renders a verdict. The terminology “forming an opinion” is a bit troubling to me, because I think it is impossible to not have an opinion on evidence as it comes in. The real requirement is not that the jury/judge not form an opinion, but that they always remain open to other opinions as more and more evidence comes in. A juror/judge should never make a decision until ALL the evidence is presented.

As to your first question, it depends completely on the judge. Some judges tend to rule from the bench, and most judges will do so on minor cases like misdemeanors or relatively easy cases. However, most judges will deliberate on more serious or more complex cases. I’ve never had a judge rule from the bench on a complicated case. So, it depends not only on the preference of the judge, but also on the complexity/seriousness of the crime. There is no requirement that they deliberate, but most of them do.