Judges decisions

[wewokahorn]

My question has two parts: When a judge decides a case are they subject to the same contraints as a jury? In other words, is their decision supposed to be based on the evidence presented in the court room and nothing else?

In a related question, suppose part A and party B present their case to a judge, and party A has a slam-dunk case ( just suppose, ok?) but their lawyers do a lousy job of arguing the case. Is the judge free to overlook the poorly presented argument and decide the case based on his/her opinion and/or previous experiences?

 

[bierce]

Lawyers' arguments are not evidence, no matter if they are made to the bench or to the jury.

The difference between a bench trial and a jury trial is that a judge is presumed to know the questions that require answering. A jury has to be told what it has to answer and given instructions regarding those questions.

In jury trials Texas, the jury's answers are used by the judge to craft the judgment, which is usually drafted by the winning party, brought to the court by motion for entry of judgment, and the lawyers argue whether the judgment is correct or not based on the jury's answers.

In a bench trial, the judge indicates from the bench what his ultimate decision is, asks the victorious party to draft a proposed judgment. The losing party then asks for the judge to submit "Findings of Fact" and "Conclusions of Law." Once these are prepared, the Findings of Fact act like jury findings on appeal.

Reviewing courts, when asked whether the fact questions were answered correctly, are supposed to defer to the decision of the jury or judge when there is evidence pointing both ways.

 

[wewokahorn]

^^^
Thanks for the clarification. I actually learned something new today!

 

[NickDanger]

Good work Bierce.

Btw, most judges will overlook a bumbling lawyer and try to get it right regardless of the skill of the lawyer. Politics and friendships and reputations sometimes get in the way and sometimes a totally incompetent lawyer will piss off a judge, but I thik they are rarely swayed just because a lawyer is good. If they don't get it right it's for other reasons. Sometimes just because the judge is a moron or has heavy predispositions.

 

[Bookman]

I can't tell if the original post is asking about the judge making a decision as a fact-finder or the judge making a legal decision.

 

[Statalyzer]

Doesn't it make a big difference if it's a civil vs criminal case?