[CWuestefeld]

It seems that judges can be jerks sometimes.

I was once a witness to a traffic accident, and had to go to court. The judge asked the defendant (whose inattention caused the accident) what happened, and his story wound up "and so the other guy was shaken up but not injured". The judge then gave a several minute harangue over his presumption in knowing what happened to the other guy.

Finally he asks the guy "how do you KNOW that he wasn't injured?". The guy replies, "I went to see him to apologize, and he TOLD ME that he wasn't injured."

Of course, the "told me" what second-hand so probably not admissible, but it sure didn't warrant the rant that the judge gave him.

[ItendToDisagree]

Anecdotal, but every Judge I've met (outside of their working environment) was a pretty self-important asshole, and I've met a number...

Not always the case I'm sure but it has always made me rethink the idea of a Judge as an 'impartial' adjucator

[diydsp]

wow lol. When I went to court years ago to defend a traffic ticket, I took the elevator up to the 3rd floor. At the second floor, the doors opened to reveal a group of people waiting to hop in.

The judge in the elevator with me quickly reached over me and pressed the "Door Close" button. This closed the doors, preventing the waiting people from getting on and the car continued to the next floor where he and I got off.

[BlackDeath3]

>Anecdotal, but every Judge I've met (outside of their working environment) was a pretty self-important asshole

I'm not terribly surprised, given that judges are pretty used to being referred to (ridiculously enough) as "Your Honor", are they not? Or is that TV shit?

[logn]

That's because speculation about what someone knows is not admissible. If there was a jury there the judge was probably upset it might affect their verdict.

Also, hearsay can be admissible. In this case the "told me that he wasn't injured" would be allowed because statements by someone going against their own interest are allowed.