Can a person who sits in on someones court case speak to the judge?
461617
If you have something material to add, you need to contact the attorney.  You could cause a mistrial if you just try and talk to the judge.  It also really depends on what kind of case it is.  Don't even try it for a criminal case--if it's something like a child custody case it might be different.
168661
I'm not sure about California laws, but in the constitution, it states that everyone has the right to a speedy due process. I don't think the judge can sit on it for a long period of time.
185844
Well, it depends on the jurisdiction, but basically, it is exactly what it says:  the judge and the lawyers for both sides confer to see how much they can agree upon to get ready for trial.  They will usually have to have their trial briefs prepared by that time, so the judge knows how to plan for how long the trial will be, how many witnesses, etc.  The judge will usually rule on motions in limine at that time; that's the motions to exclude certain witnesses or evidence for various reasons.  There may be stipulations of fact or applicable law, to save time.  (An obvious one is to stipulate that the documents presented are authentic copies of the originals, to save the time of having to prove that.)  They will also usually go over the jury instructions each side wants the judge to read to the jury.  These are precisely worded (we say "boilerplated") instructions which are based directly on the applicable law.  Of course, each side has somewhat different ideas as to which laws are applicable, and so the judge looks over the ones each side proposes, and decides which ones he will use.  They may talk about their expert witnesses, and the need to put certain witnesses on earlier or later than the usual order of things, for whatever reasons.  Sometimes there will be discussions of what exhibits are going to be used, so the courtroom staff can have a blackboard or an overhead projector or whatever available.  Above all, this is the very last chance to settle a case without the expense of a trial, if there is any hope of doing so.  In criminal cases, this would usually mean that the DA offers to reduce the charge if the defendant will plead guilty, rather than take the time and expense (and risk he will lose) of going to trial.
49127
only if the judge allows it in
995332
Ask Matt Drudge, or tell it to the judge.
751431
That's a good question and what about a change in venue if he's or she's bad. Maybe log on to court sit and look him or her up.
185255
Do you have an attorney?  If so, they should be advising you on this.  If not, it sounds as though you need one!\n\nIf you think the judge will treat you unfairly, you will first have to convince the judge of that.  Judges are assumed to be impartial, so it is customary to ask them to recuse or remove themselves from a trial or hearing. You would be expected to prove that they may have a bias or personal stake in the outcome.  Only if the judge refuses to do so should you petition the administrative judge (judge's supervisor) to request they be removed.  Going over the judge's head without giving them an opportunity to voluntarily step aside would likely be ignored by the administrative judge and result in the judge in question to make your life even more difficult.
1131058
Sure, he can file suit against you. A judge would have to be high to even listen past the first part of the complaint though.\n\nSo, can he sue? Yes. Can he successfully sue? Hell, no.\n\nIn fact, you could sue him for threatening to sue you...
137000
You may motion the judge to do that.  It will be up to the judge on the case.
253549
Often it is because the Judge wants to discuss something with the attorneys that they do not wnat the rest of the court to hear, such as warnings to an attorney that they will be charged with contempt if they do not stick to asking questions relevant to the case.\n\nThis happens a lot on T.V. but it almost never happens in a real courtroom.  In fact most of the time the attorney's and defendant(s) are already right in fromt of the bench.  Big trials like you see on T.V. are very rare.
804540
If you know the court division, you can find out the presiding judge by visiting the court's website and seeing who is assigned.
496025
It depends on the judge/justice of the peace/magistrate.  Legally, you are entitled to insist that you have a right to confront all witnesses against you and since the only witness who has any firsthand knowledge of what you allegedly did is not available, the case cannot proceed and must be dismissed.  But it is entirely possible that the judge/JOTP/magistrate either (1) doesn't care or (2) doesn't know what that means, and will let the hearing proceed as the judge, prosecutor, chief witness, and fact finder...to which you can object to, and his only response will be argue it on appeal.
1120724
THAT WOULD DEPEND UPON WHETHER THE PERSON WAS SENT TO A PROFESSIONAL IN THE FIELD UNDER WHICH THE PERSON WAS BEING EVALUATED. IN SOME CASES THE JUDGE CAN SEND A PERSON FOR RE-EVALUATION IF HE/SHE DETERMINES THE PERSON WHO GAVE THE EVALUATION TO BE BIASED TOWARD THE PERSON BEING EVALUATED. BUT, NO, A  PERSON CANNOT BE RE-EVALUATED MERELY TO SATISFY THE WHIMS OF A JUDGE. OR ANY ONE ELSE.
820071
You can't personally contact the judge like that because he has to make the decision on his own, he's not allowed to be swayed by public opinion.
1181263
contact Freind of the court
931353
Lawyers represent either the plaintiff or the defendant. Judges decide who wins or loses.
630635
Dear Friend,\n\nJudges generally have discretion to recuse themselves from hearing any case in which they have a personal interest.  For example, if a family member, or the judge's church, or the company she worked with for decades came before her, the judge can and should ask another judge to take the case.  Certainly if the judge herself is a litigant, she cannot hear her own case.\n\nGenerally speaking, trial courts do have to hear whatever are filed in front of them.  Which particular judge hears which case is for the judges to decide.  Mostly this is done through random assignment to keep things fair.  However, for example, senior federal trial judges have the ability to say they don't want to take a particular sort of case... for example, criminal cases.  And if a judge has too crowded a docket, she can work with the clerk to have certain cases reassigned.  \n\nIntermediate appeallate courts usually hear everything as well, although they can decide for themselves whether to do so in panels of just a few judges -- or en banc, which means a hearing before all the judges of a certain area.  \n\nIt's not quite true that state supreme courts and the USSC have absolute discretion which cases to hear.  For example, death penalty cases are often appealed as of right to state supreme courts.  And the USSC is the only place that certain disputes, like those between sovereign States, can be heard.  But generally speaking those judges do have a LOT more say over which cases they hear.\n\nHope that helps.\n\nYour Friend, \nFrancesois