# The judge and the bench. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 31, 2008, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319 "2008-12-31T05:06:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2008, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/1 "2008-12-31T05:06:10Z")
I was watching Boston Legal tonight, and one of the judges was walking around away from the bench. Down where the recorder sits and such. I thought that somehow wasn’t allowed. Is it? Peace, mangeorge ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2008, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/2 "2008-12-31T05:26:35Z")
The judge can do whatever he or she wants. In a smaller courtroom a lawyer may be showing an exhibit to the jury and the judge might not be in a good position to see it, so he might get up to get a better view. I’ve seen a judge, after a particularly hectic morning call, get up during a motion hearing while a witness was testifying and stand off toward the side of the courtroom rubbing his eyes. Maybe he had a hangover. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2008, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/3 "2008-12-31T05:51:16Z")
The judge owns the courtroom and can do whatever she wants, including walking around the courtroom. And, particularly when the jury isn’t there, the judge is more free to wander. I’ve had a judge come down off the bench and come over to where I was sitting to look at a necklace I was wearing, and another time a judge came down to look at pictures on a lawyer’s laptop (he heard us laughing from chambers so came out to look at Halloween pictures of a lawyer’s kids). In front of a jury, they tend to be more circumscribed, but I’ve seen judges come down and talk to the clerk, to the bailiff, to the court reporter. I’ve also (once) seen a judge come down and sit next to the witness in the witness box to go over a document with the witness. Incidentally, the empty area in the middle of the courtroom, between the jury box, the clerk’s desk, the lawyer’s tables and the judge’s bench is called the well. And while lawyers are not permitted to “traverse the well” without permission, as mentioned above, the judge can do whatever she wants. ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2008, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/4 "2008-12-31T14:06:53Z")
[objection! (hijack)] So, why is it called “the bench”? Is it because judges of the past _literally sat on a bench_? Or is it more along the lines of sports teams who are “benched” in a dugout or a particular area. [/objection! (/hijack)] Tripler Seriously, I’m curious. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2008, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/5 "2008-12-31T14:40:08Z")
Far as I know, it was an actual bench, although the use of the word to mean a court is at least hundreds of years old – the main civil court in England from the 17 or 18th centuries was the Court of King’s (or Queen’s) Bench. (Which still exists, although in different form.) The Bar, meaning the society of lawyers, referred to an actual bar between the public and the well at the old Court of King’s Bench, which you could only cross if you were an appropriately qualified barrister. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/6 "2009-01-01T14:27:15Z")
> [@Tripler](#): > > [objection! (hijack)] > > So, why is it called “the bench”? Is it because judges of the past _literally sat on a bench_? Or is it more along the lines of sports teams who are “benched” in a dugout or a particular area. > > [/objection! (/hijack)] > > Tripler > Seriously, I’m curious. Yes - the bench at the King’s High Table in Westminster Hall. Originally, the King participated in dispensing justice himself, aided by his judges, all sitting at the bench, but eventually only the judges sat. During some renovations of Westminster Hall a few years ago, they found the remnants of the [King’s High Table](http://www.parliament.uk/about/visiting/exhibitions/westminsterhall.cfm), but not the bench. > [@](#): > > The sturdy King’s Table now became an important symbol of authority. It represented the source of royal judgement. The King or Queen sat here as the head of the court, with the Lord Chancellor taking their place if they were away. > … > Eventually, at the Reformation under King Henry VIII, in the mid 16th century the table became concealed by the wooden enclosures of the Courts of Chancery and King’s Bench. It disappeared completely at the time of the Civil War in about 1649. > > It is thought that the old King’s table and bench, so central to the early courts, were removed and broken up in the 1600s. The courts of law continued in the hall until 1820, when they were taken away and set up in new buildings nearby. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2009, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/7 "2009-01-01T14:42:35Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > Far as I know, it was an actual bench, although the use of the word to mean a court is at least hundreds of years old – the main civil court in England from the 17 or 18th centuries was the Court of King’s (or Queen’s) Bench. (Which still exists, although in different form.) I don’t think it’s quite accurate to say that the King’s Bench was the main civil court. There was also the Court of Common Pleas which had an extensive civil jurisdiction. For example, that was where the celebrated trial of [_Bardell v. Pickwick_](http://www.amazon.com/Bardell-V-Pickwick-Guildhall-Stareleigh/dp/1584774207) took place. I would agree that it was in decline by that point, but it was still functioning. And there was also the Exchequer Court, with a civil jurisdiction acquired via legal fictions, and the the Court of Chancery, which was a purely civil court. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2009, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/8 "2009-01-01T16:23:49Z")
Those courts are still around. At least the Chancery Division is, part of the High Court in the Royal Courts of Justice (The “RCJ” or Robbing Citizens Judiciously). ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/9 "2009-01-01T18:00:29Z")
There appear to be some parallels between the bench in a court and the altar in a church. One being that the importance of the participants diminishes with distance from the bench/altar. Is there any prohibition against non-judge people messing around the bench? For example, sitting in the chair? IIRC, A Roman Catholic church is just a buiding when “The Host” is not present. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/10 "2009-01-01T22:23:16Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I don’t think it’s quite accurate to say that the King’s Bench was the main civil court. There was also the Court of Common Pleas which had an extensive civil jurisdiction… Here in Pennsylvania our general trial courts are called _Court of Common Pleas of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ County_. American states preserve all sorts of terms long since considered archaic in the Commonwealth. Back to the OP was that judge also wearing his robe open, like a coat? I remember a judge on BL (or maybe the Practice) from California who was very informal. ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/11 "2009-01-01T23:06:01Z")
Wow! Thanks for the info, y’all! That was an especially cool link **Northern Piper**. Kind of funny how something so important sort of slips through history’s fingers. Tripler Learn sumthin’ new every day, I tell ya. . . ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/12 "2009-01-02T00:07:42Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Here in Pennsylvania our general trial courts are called _Court of Common Pleas of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ County_. American states preserve all sorts of terms long since considered archaic in the Commonwealth. > Back to the OP was that judge also wearing his robe open, like a coat? I remember a judge on BL (or maybe the Practice) from California who was very informal. That’s the guy alright. It was on Boston Legal. He kept over-ruling the prosecutor and semi-rolling his eyes. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/13 "2009-01-02T00:10:19Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > The judge can do whatever he or she wants. In a smaller courtroom a lawyer may be showing an exhibit to the jury and the judge might not be in a good position to see it, so he might get up to get a better view. I’ve seen a judge, after a particularly hectic morning call, get up during a motion hearing while a witness was testifying and stand off toward the side of the courtroom rubbing his eyes. Maybe he had a hangover. Blatant hijack: Curly, right? I’m trying to remember where I’ve heard your nickname before. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/14 "2009-01-03T16:17:35Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Those courts are still around. At least the Chancery Division is, part of the High Court in the Royal Courts of Justice (The “RCJ” or Robbing Citizens Judiciously). Nope. All of the old royal superior courts were abolished by the _Judicature Act, 1873_, which came into force into 1875. They were replaced by a new, single superior court, the Supreme Court of Judicature. As an administrative matter, that Court has divisions for the allocation of business, which carry forward some of the names of the old courts (notably King’s/Queen’s Bench and Chancery). However, those administrative divisions are not the same as the old royal superior courts, each with its own judges, body of law, and bar. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2009, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/15 "2009-01-04T01:13:17Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I don’t think it’s quite accurate to say that the King’s Bench was the main civil court. There was also the Court of Common Pleas which had an extensive civil jurisdiction. For example, that was where the celebrated trial of [_Bardell v. Pickwick_](http://www.amazon.com/Bardell-V-Pickwick-Guildhall-Stareleigh/dp/1584774207) took place. I would agree that it was in decline by that point, but it was still functioning. Yeah, I know. But my understanding is that by the turn of the 18th century, at least, K.B. was considered the most important court, even if its jurisdiction vis a vis Common Pleas wasn’t yet formalized. I expect Canadian legal education goes into this in more detail than U.S., though. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2009, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/16 "2009-01-04T01:17:22Z")
> [@mangeorge](#): > > Is there any prohibition against non-judge people messing around the bench? For example, sitting in the chair? > IIRC, A Roman Catholic church is just a buiding when “The Host” is not present. Generally true of American courts as well – I’ve sat in judges’ chairs myself. That said, I think they’ll have a problem with you sneaking into the U.S. Supreme Court building and sitting in the Chief’s chair even if court isn’t in session. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2009, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/17 "2009-01-04T16:27:59Z")
> [@Tripler](#): > > Wow! Thanks for the info, y’all! That was an especially cool link **Northern Piper**. Kind of funny how something so important sort of slips through history’s fingers. > > Tripler > Learn sumthin’ new every day, I tell ya. . . You’re welcome! I’m not sure, though, if this was an example of slipping through fingers, or a conscious attempt to eliminate. The web-page suggests that the table and bench were destroyed or removed during the Commonwealth period, because they were an obvious example of royal authority. During that same period, the King’s Bench was re-named the Upper Bench by the Commonwealth men. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2009, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/18 "2009-01-04T17:03:49Z")
> [@mangeorge](#): > > There appear to be some parallels between the bench in a court and the altar in a church. One being that the importance of the participants diminishes with distance from the bench/altar. Well, yes and no. If you mean social importance, no, I don’t agree with the comment. Functional importance, sort of. The courtroom is a workplace, after all. The Bench, the jury box, the dock, the clerk’s table, and the counsel table are all part of that workplace. If you don’t have a role in the ongoing activity, then you’ve got no right to be there, any more than a member of the public is allowed to wander around a shop floor in a factory. But even by that analysis, the comment overlooks the functional importance of the public to the court’s proceedings. The public is, in fact, essential to the operation of the court. Under the open court principle, the public has a right to attend court, and as a general rule, the court cannot operate unless the court-room is open to the public. If the public is improperly excluded from the court, any proceedings taken may be null and void. So in that sense, the public is one of the most important parts of the court’s operation, even if they’re not involved in the actual proceedings of the court. > [@](#): > > Is there any prohibition against non-judge people messing around the bench? For example, sitting in the chair? Not when the court isn’t in session. The chair and the bench aren’t objects of veneration or anything, but for security reasons, courtrooms are normally locked when the court is not in session. > [@](#): > > IIRC, A Roman Catholic church is just a buiding when “The Host” is not present. I don’t think this is right. Churches are consecrated and do not lose their consecrated status if there’s no Host present. However, it is the presence of the judge that turns a building into a court. I’ve participated in courts held in community halls, Legion halls, and so on. The judges of the Provincial Court here go out on circuit into the smaller communities, in rural areas and the North, to take justice to the people. When the clerk declares the court open in the name of Her Majesty and the judge comes in, you’re suddenly in a court-room, not the Legion’s bingo hall. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/19 "2009-01-04T18:22:52Z")
My poor vocabulary again. By “importance”, I mean something close to the functional importance. Significance, maybe, although both mean the same. In both church and court the public has no active effect on the proceedings, nor are they the focus of what’s going on. The sermon comes close, but even then priest is a conduit between the public and their god, who _is_ the focus. The first thing the priest does at the beginning of mass is to say something which makes the place sacred, or maybe more sacred. A priest can go to a bingo hall (or any place), pull the bread out his ditty bag and bless (consecrate) it, and that place becomes a church. I think. It’s been about fifty years since I’ve exposed myself to anything church, so I may well be full of “it”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2009, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-judge-and-the-bench/479319/20 "2009-01-04T18:37:12Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > Incidentally, the empty area in the middle of the courtroom, between the jury box, the clerk’s desk, the lawyer’s tables and the judge’s bench is called the well. And while lawyers are not permitted to “traverse the well” without permission, as mentioned above, the judge can do whatever she wants. True, although some judges by dint of long and well-understood practice have an open policy and don’t require explicit permission to approach the witness… at least in Virginia’s state courts. In contrast, the Eastern District of Virginia (federal courts) were very strict about attorneys’ staying behind the podium unless permisson was granted.