Add RSS RSS

Judge of the Day: James M. Brooks

James Brooks Judge James M Brooks Abovethelaw Above the Law blog.jpgThe Honorable James M. Brooks — a California trial judge and prior Judge of the Day honoree, with a history of getting himself into hot water — might want to leave comedy to James L. Brooks.

Judge Brooks’s attempts at humor didn’t go over too well with the folks upstairs. From On Point News:

A California judge’s jocular behavior backfired as an appeals court ordered a new trial in an employment bias case, ruling that he had created a “circus atmosphere” and “a courtroom is not the Improv.”…

Brooks’s performance in the bias case against Ricoh Electronics suggests the CJP let him off lightly. The jury returned a defense verdict after a 31-day jury trial during which, the 4th District Court of Appeal said, the judge “allowed, indeed helped create, a circus atmosphere, giving defendants’ lawyer free rein to deride and make snide remarks at will and at the expense of plaintiffs and their lawyer.”

Among other things, Brooks flashed a hand-lettered sign saying “Overruled” when plaintiffs’ counsel Michelle A. Reinglass made objections. “It’s lightening things up,” he said when she objected to the sign.

The appellate court was not amused:

[A] courtroom is not the Improv and the presider’s role model is not Judge Judy. We can only imagine what was in the jurors’ minds as they endured a 30-plus day trial in this atmosphere or the impression of the judicial system they took away with them posttrial.

“[T]he presider’s role model is not Judge Judy.” Well, it depends. If the presider wants to be a respectable and responsible jurist, fine. But if the presider wants his own courtroom television show — a la Judge Larry Seidlin, of Anna Nicole Smith case fame — Judge Judy is a veritable Cardozo.

Court Finds No Humor in Joking Judge’s Trial Antics [On Point News]
O.C. judge rebuked for antics [Orange County Register]

Earlier: Judges of the Day: Wilbur Mathesius and James Brooks

Comments

avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, June 7, 2007 12:46 PM

too lazy to read the opinion: did they censure or otherwise discipline the judge?

avatar
2 Posted by Anon | Permalink Thursday, June 7, 2007 12:58 PM

State court. Sigh.

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, June 7, 2007 1:02 PM

judges need raises - man, what a bunch of retards fill these state benches.

avatar
4 Posted by anon. | Permalink Thursday, June 7, 2007 2:16 PM

Talk to the sign 'cuz the Judge ain't listenin'

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, June 7, 2007 5:58 PM

O-v-e-r-ru-l-e-d.

(Red card for the California Comission on Judicial Performance.)

avatar
6 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, June 7, 2007 6:04 PM

Dear 12;46:

No. But the judge has a history of discipline, as referenced in the linked story, and you can bet the Commission on Judicial Performance will now take another bite at the apple.

Prior disciplinary opinion here:
http://cjp.ca.gov/PubAdm/Brooks%20JM%2011-29-06.pdf

Post Your Comment