Why does Judge Judy testify?

**David Ames** · 06-04-2006, 07:43 PM

On innumerable occasions, a plaintiff or defendant will testify "He
knows .." and Judge Judy will assert, on the contrary, "He doesn't
know."

According to my understanding, in a bench trial, the judge determines
the facts. How does a judge determine that one party doesn't know a
certain thing unless that party so testifies?

It would certainly be my position that my adversary knows a certain
thing FROM ME (because it is true and I told it to him) but chooses to
ignore that knowledge.

David Ames

**Mike Jacobs** · 06-07-2006, 08:19 AM

David Ames wrote:

On innumerable occasions, a plaintiff or defendant will testify "He knows .." and Judge Judy will assert, on the contrary, "He doesn't know."

Keep telling yourself, "it's only a TV show". The ordinary rules of
evidence and courtroom decorum do not apply on a TV show. But I think
Her Honor's assertion may simply be intended, in her own sweet and
gentle way, to reject any attempt by one party to testify to what the
OTHER party knows. With few exceptions, all testimony in a trial is
supposed to be from the witness' own personal knowledge. Unless and
until we invent an infallible brainwave interpretation telepathy device
and apply it to the party in question, NOBODY but the party in question
himself knows what it is that he knows in his own mind. The party on
the witness stand can testify to what HE knows, or to what he TOLD the
party in question (if that is relevant), but not to what is going on in
the other party's head.

According to my understanding, in a bench trial, the judge determines the facts. How does a judge determine that one party doesn't know a certain thing unless that party so testifies?

See above. The party whose knowledge is in dispute CAN testify, or
maybe he doesn't want to and doesn't have to. In either event, the
party who bears the burden of proof can't meet that burden by
testifying to something HE doesn't know, i.e., to what's going on in
the other person's head. The testifying witness can only speak from
his OWN personal knowledge. That doesn't mean the judge can't INFER
knowledge from other circumstances. But the testimony itself has to
be regarding those circumstances, not jumping to the ultimate
conclusion of what is going on in the other person's head.

It would certainly be my position that my adversary knows a certain thing FROM ME (because it is true and I told it to him) but chooses to ignore that knowledge.

If I were the judge I wouldn't let you testify to another person's
presumed knowledge either. All you can testify to is what YOU know.
You know you told your opponent X, and you can testify to that. Or
you can testify that the other party's actions, or other facts, imply
and indicate that he probably knows X. But you can't testify under
oath that your opponent KNOWS X because that would require you to get
inside your opponent's head, which you can't do. It's not just
semantics. It's 2 different things you would be testifying to, one
permitted, one not, because you have no direct knowledge of it.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300

**nobody** · 06-07-2006, 08:19 AM

"David Ames" <worldrecord@juno.com> wrote in message
news:da6782t8inpqam0t6k3n948ka13j0bbr26@4ax.com...

On innumerable occasions, a plaintiff or defendant will testify "He knows .." and Judge Judy will assert, on the contrary, "He doesn't know." According to my understanding, in a bench trial, the judge determines the facts. How does a judge determine that one party doesn't know a certain thing unless that party so testifies? It would certainly be my position that my adversary knows a certain thing FROM ME (because it is true and I told it to him) but chooses to ignore that knowledge. David Ames

Judge Judy is a terrible jurist. The only decent judge (on reality court
shows) who even vaguely followed the law was Wapner.

**Stan Brown** · 06-07-2006, 08:19 AM

Sun, 04 Jun 2006 22:43:43 -0400 from David Ames
<worldrecord@juno.com>:

On innumerable occasions, a plaintiff or defendant will testify "He knows .." and Judge Judy will assert, on the contrary, "He doesn't know." According to my understanding, in a bench trial, the judge determines the facts. How does a judge determine that one party doesn't know a certain thing unless that party so testifies?

There are two possibilities, and on the given facts it's impossible
to distinguish between them.

(1) A says "B knows" when in fact B is speculating or inferring or
even guessing: "He knows that I have every intention of paying my
rent," for instance. In this case "he doesn't know" is perfectly
proper and is shorthand for "In law there is no way B could 'know'
that."
In small-claims court, where there's no jury, it often serves the
interests of justice for a judge to correct misimpressions by one of
the parties as soon as they're brought up. This makes it more likely
that the parties will understand what's behind the final ruling --
that justice will not only be done but will be *seen* to be done.

or,

(2) TV judges are not fettered by the same tiresome rules that bind
real judges,(*) like the need to appear impartial. Instead they
answer to a higher call, the need to appear interesting. All else
being equal, arbitrary and unpredictable are more interesting than
bland and impartial.

It sounds like you assume (2) was going on. You could be right, and
without the full facts there's no way to know. But -- again, without
the full facts -- it could just as well have been (1).

(*) However, real judges have a lot more discretion than many people
realize. In many jurisdictions, for instance, it's within the rules
for judges to examine witnesses themselves, which can tear holes in
an attorney's case. In the UK, it's *very* common for a judge to make
specific comments to the jury about the evidence. I don't know
whether that's forbidden in the US or simply very rare.

--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com

**JMW** · 06-07-2006, 08:19 AM

"David Ames" <worldrecord@juno.com> wrote:

On innumerable occasions, a plaintiff or defendant will testify "Heknows .." and Judge Judy will assert, on the contrary, "He doesn'tknow."According to my understanding, in a bench trial, the judge determinesthe facts. How does a judge determine that one party doesn't know acertain thing unless that party so testifies?It would certainly be my position that my adversary knows a certainthing FROM ME (because it is true and I told it to him) but chooses toignore that knowledge.

Because the parties have waived a legal adjudication and have
consented to be mini-celebrities on a courtroom version of The Jerry
Springer Show?

**Tony** · 06-07-2006, 08:19 AM

David Ames wrote:

On innumerable occasions, a plaintiff or defendant will testify "He knows .." and Judge Judy will assert, on the contrary, "He doesn't know." According to my understanding, in a bench trial, the judge determines the facts. How does a judge determine that one party doesn't know a certain thing unless that party so testifies? It would certainly be my position that my adversary knows a certain thing FROM ME (because it is true and I told it to him) but chooses to ignore that knowledge.

It seems to me that it is a grave mistake to view Judge Judy as a good
example of a properly run courtroom.

Why? Because the show is "Judge Judy" and that's what the viewers want
to see. The law has nothing to do with it.

**John D. Goulden** · 06-07-2006, 08:19 AM

> On innumerable occasions, a plaintiff or defendant will testify "He

knows .." and Judge Judy will assert, on the contrary, "He doesn't know." According to my understanding, in a bench trial, the judge determines the facts. How does a judge determine that one party doesn't know a certain thing unless that party so testifies? It would certainly be my position that my adversary knows a certain thing FROM ME (because it is true and I told it to him) but chooses to ignore that knowledge.

"Judge Judy" is a coutroom-based reality show, not a court of law. She can
say or do anything she wants.

--
John D. Goulden

**Seth Breidbart** · 06-07-2006, 08:19 AM

In article <da6782t8inpqam0t6k3n948ka13j0bbr26@4ax.com>,
David Ames <worldrecord@juno.com> wrote:

On innumerable occasions, a plaintiff or defendant will testify "Heknows .." and Judge Judy will assert, on the contrary, "He doesn'tknow."According to my understanding, in a bench trial, the judge determinesthe facts. How does a judge determine that one party doesn't know acertain thing unless that party so testifies?

I suspect that's shorthand for "You don't _know_ that he knows,
therefore you can't testify that he knows."

If it were worded "He told me that . . ." at least the testimony is
about something the witness actually observed.

It would certainly be my position that my adversary knows a certainthing FROM ME (because it is true and I told it to him) but chooses toignore that knowledge.

Then you should testify "I told him" not "He knows".

Seth

**Deadrat** · 06-07-2006, 08:19 AM

"David Ames" <worldrecord@juno.com> wrote in message
news:da6782t8inpqam0t6k3n948ka13j0bbr26@4ax.com...

On innumerable occasions, a plaintiff or defendant will testify "He knows .." and Judge Judy will assert, on the contrary, "He doesn't know." According to my understanding, in a bench trial, the judge determines the facts. How does a judge determine that one party doesn't know a certain thing unless that party so testifies? It would certainly be my position that my adversary knows a certain thing FROM ME (because it is true and I told it to him) but chooses to ignore that knowledge. David Ames

I'm only gonna say this once, which is one more time than I should have
to: Judge Judy is a television show.

**David Ames** · 06-09-2006, 06:35 AM

Mark A wrote:

Judge Judy is a terrible jurist.

Agreed. In one case, a defendant presented court documents excusing
his further financial responsibility in a matter. Judge Judy crumpled
up his documents and threw them on the floor.

I mentioned this to a prosecutor, who wondered what was Judge Judy's
record on appeal. I had to tell her that there is no appeal. Judge
Judy's court is not a court of law with privileges and safeguards for
each party. It is a court of final arbitration. Anyone who agrees to
arbitration of previous judgments in her court is a fool.

If you will listen to the explanations given by the TV announcer, Judge
Judy's verdicts are based on "principles" of law, rather than on the
law and its solemn interpretation.

My wife doesn't tape Judge Wapner, so I cannot react to your statement
favoring him..

David Ames

**nobody** · 06-09-2006, 06:35 AM

"Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:tfpd82h331vcksb2juenrvet3o2hbrvsvd@4ax.com...

It seems to me that it is a grave mistake to view Judge Judy as a good example of a properly run courtroom. Why? Because the show is "Judge Judy" and that's what the viewers want to see. The law has nothing to do with it.

OTOH, Wapner did a very good job.

**Seth Breidbart** · 06-09-2006, 06:35 AM

In article <mfpd82p3vgrar7l1jnn7vhrpn3oe7uueeq@4ax.com>,
Mike Jacobs <mjacobslaw@gmail.com> wrote:

If I were the judge I wouldn't let you testify to another person'spresumed knowledge either. All you can testify to is what YOU know. You know you told your opponent X, and you can testify to that. Oryou can testify that the other party's actions, or other facts, implyand indicate that he probably knows X.

Can you? I would think you can testify that you saw him do Y and
heard him say Z, and let the judge (or jury) draw the conclusion that
he must have known (or believed, or perhaps hoped or guessed) X.

Seth

**Stuart Bronstein** · 06-11-2006, 12:22 PM

"David Ames" <worldrecord@juno.com> wrote:

I mentioned this to a prosecutor, who wondered what was Judge Judy's record on appeal. I had to tell her that there is no appeal. Judge Judy's court is not a court of law with privileges and safeguards for each party. It is a court of final arbitration. Anyone who agrees to arbitration of previous judgments in her court is a fool.

Judge Judy's show is taped in California. Technically it is a real
court of law. The parties appoint the judge as a pro-tem small claims
judge authorized to hear their case. All rules of California small
claims courts apply, with the possible exception that the defendant may
waive the right to appeal.

I do not watch her show often. But the times I've seen it she did a
very good job of deciding things on the law rather than her own whin.

Stu

**Stan Brown** · 06-11-2006, 12:22 PM

Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:35:28 -0400 from David Ames
<worldrecord@juno.com>:

I mentioned this to a prosecutor, who wondered what was Judge Judy's record on appeal. I had to tell her that there is no appeal. Judge Judy's court is not a court of law with privileges and safeguards for each party. It is a court of final arbitration. Anyone who agrees to arbitration of previous judgments in her court is a fool.

It may not be quite that bad.

If I recall correctly, the way these TV courts all work is that
there's a fund for each case. The plaintiff, if she prevails, is paid
from that fund, and then the rest is split between defendant and
plaintiff. I don't think the fund is very large, but given that the
cases are typically at the level of small claims I don't think
defendant is actually out of pocket even if she loses.

--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com

**Seth Breidbart** · 06-12-2006, 05:47 AM

In article <e7ro82506l290ka2helmmdpujch1oj8e7q@4ax.com>,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:35:28 -0400 from David Ames<worldrecord@juno.com>:

I mentioned this to a prosecutor, who wondered what was Judge Judy's record on appeal. I had to tell her that there is no appeal. Judge Judy's court is not a court of law with privileges and safeguards for each party. It is a court of final arbitration. Anyone who agrees to arbitration of previous judgments in her court is a fool.

It may not be quite that bad.If I recall correctly, the way these TV courts all work is thatthere's a fund for each case. The plaintiff, if she prevails, is paidfrom that fund, and then the rest is split between defendant andplaintiff. I don't think the fund is very large, but given that thecases are typically at the level of small claims I don't thinkdefendant is actually out of pocket even if she loses.

That's what I read; the fund is the small claims limit, so the
defendant can't be worse off by accepting, and is almost certainly
better off (if he'd win in real court, but Judge Judy awards the
plaintiff the full amount, he breaks even). The plaintiff _can_ be
worse off: if Judge Judy rules for the defendant, but a real court
would have given him more than half the limit, he loses. But on the
average, the plaintiff comes out ahead (and if he's claiming less than
half the limit, he's guaranteed to).

Seth

**Mike Jacobs** · 06-12-2006, 05:47 AM

Seth Breidbart wrote:

In article <mfpd82p3vgrar7l1jnn7vhrpn3oe7uueeq@4ax.com>, Mike Jacobs <mjacobslaw@gmail.com> wrote:

If I were the judge I wouldn't let you testify to another person'spresumed knowledge either. All you can testify to is what YOU know. You know you told your opponent X, and you can testify to that. Oryou can testify that the other party's actions, or other facts, implyand indicate that he probably knows X.

Can you? I would think you can testify that you saw him do Y and heard him say Z, and let the judge (or jury) draw the conclusion that he must have known (or believed, or perhaps hoped or guessed) X.

You're right, I agree with you, and I reserve the right to blame my
mistake on excessive speed, late night and poor proofreading. This
is, after all, just a hobby and no one is paying me or relying on this
work product for life-changing decisions (Or if they are, they
should know better by now). I should have written, "you can testify TO
the other party's actions, or other facts, THAT imply and indicate that
he probably knows X."

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300

**RSteve** · 11-13-2006, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Stan Brown

Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:35:28 -0400 from David Ames
<worldrecord@juno.com>:

It may not be quite that bad.

If I recall correctly, the way these TV courts all work is that
there's a fund for each case. The plaintiff, if she prevails, is paid
from that fund, and then the rest is split between defendant and
plaintiff. I don't think the fund is very large, but given that the
cases are typically at the level of small claims I don't think
defendant is actually out of pocket even if she loses.
]

I thought that the fund was simply to pay for any monetary judgements made - so for example if the plaintiff sues for $1,000 and wins, the show pays the plaintiff that amount rather than the defendant. I don't think anyone not suing, or whose claim is dismissed, is given any money, though I presume the show pays for travel to California and pays for hotel accomodation for both plaintiff and defendant.

Although the defendant isn't paid, they get a free trip to California and the knowledge that even if they lose the case, they don't actually have to pay the damages - the show does, so they don't lose - unlike in a real small claims court whereby they would be financially liable for the award made. If you're being sued for up to $5,000, the shows limit, then you can potentially avoid having to pay a lot of money. This is why the defendants often don't look too concerned when they lose and often admit guilt and liability quite readily to avoid a lecture from the judge.

The plaintiff has to live with knowing they've effectively let the person they are suing off completely, as they won't be out any money, but the advantage to them is they get the check the same day for the full amount they are awarded, which wouldn't happen in a real small-claims court where enforcing the judgement can be a long and costly process - this is why the people being sued are often clearly not in a position to pay the money - the plaintiff knows they would likely never see any money after a judgement in a real small claims court.

This arrangement is one aspect of the show which is fake, as Judge Judy will often say "you're going to have to pay this money" to the defendant, which is simply not true - the show is designed to fool you, by the Judge making a clear statement that the defendant will actually pay the money - it's only the small print legal statement at the end of the credits which admits "all monetary awards are paid from a fund maintained by the producer".

I am from England and although not a laywer, I work for the police department I am fascinated by the law in general and American law in particular, probably because of shows like this and Court TV - TV cameras aren't allowed in British courtrooms.

I understand that technically Judge Judy and similar shows are courts of final arbitration, but I'm fascinated as to whether it's really true you can't appeal the rulings. I presume you sign a contract giving up your right to sue in a real court and to accept the judgement as final and binding, but couldn't a real judge overturn that contract and make a ruling, thus overturning the judgement and being in effect a court of appeal?

I have only read of one time when Judge Judy was "overruled" by a New York family court judge when she set up a child supoort payment arrangement, but reading the article carefully Judge Judy claims it was simply an interim arrangement made until the question of child support was resolved in a real court, therefore it wasn't a "judgement" that was overruled. I can't find any other cases of an overrulement, so I assume she really can't be overruled, but I'd be interested to know if this is true.

Also, I understand the financial awards and how they work, but Judge Judy often drafts "court orders" ordering actual property to be returned within a set amount of days - and the small print in the legal statement at the end of the show states that such transfers of property are "facilitated" by security staff. But if the security staff turn up at your door for the property, presumably they have no legal authority to take property from you if you refuse to hand it over. Therefore you'd have to take your Judge Judy ruling to a real court to get a real court order to enforce it, which presumably could be refused - therefore providing another avenue of "appeal".

**Katja144** · 12-01-2006, 09:05 PM

Heh, I'd always know better than to go to Judge Judy. She's actually my least favorite of all the TV judges, as well--the woman screams "bias." She seems to decide early on who she thinks is right and doesn't budge from that no matter what else is said. She seems to act like a jerk purposely because it's what is expected of her. Not exactly my idea of an epitome of legality. Calling her a "judge" in the proper sense would be much like calling Howard Stern a "journalist" in the proper sense....not so much.

**RSteve** · 12-01-2006, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Katja144

Heh, I'd always know better than to go to Judge Judy. She's actually my least favorite of all the TV judges, as well--the woman screams "bias." She seems to decide early on who she thinks is right and doesn't budge from that no matter what else is said. She seems to act like a jerk purposely because it's what is expected of her. Not exactly my idea of an epitome of legality. Calling her a "judge" in the proper sense would be much like calling Howard Stern a "journalist" in the proper sense....not so much.

Possibly, but it's interesting to note that she WAS a real-life family court judge in New York. It would be interesting to know what she was like in a real courtroom!

Thread: Why does Judge Judy testify?

Thread Tools

Display