Can anyone explain to me why judges are allowed to ask questions during cross or whatever? Like a jury couldn't ask questions, why can a judge?

Good TR aj, especially important that you learned stuff obv.

Also, I've seen a judge ask a question during a jury trial to clarify something the attorney said. I think she said something like "in my role as a judge I want to clarify what you just said." I dunno I just think it should be up to the attorneys, if they aren't clear oh well you lose.

I assume they need to thoroughly understand the legal issues involved so the jury can be instructed properly.

That should be done at sidebar imo though.

I don't remember the question at the time, but it was something along the lines of the attorney saying "did you park your car there" and the judge saying "wait, why is that important." I was kinda like wtf let opposing counsel object, stay neutral.

This was a bench trial right? How is that decision made?

Well I was talking about both. I mean when I've watched bench trials I've seen the judge interrupt and start asking questions during direct or cross or whatever. I think that's inappropriate because honestly if counsel doesn't make something clear, it's on him. A jury doesn't get to ask questions like that, why should a judge? Like if counsel fails to establish an element of the crime (or refute one), and the judge asks about it, wtf.

I have ALSO seen it during a jury trial (although obviously much more rare) where the judge starts asking questions to clarify something. I think it's also not fair because it draws attention to something that wouldn't be drawn attention to otherwise. Jury might be falling asleep during a boring line of questioning and now the judge has drawn attention to something important. The judge said something like it's my role as judge to make sure stuff is clear.

How did Arjenni's case become a bench trial? Is that less expensive?

Today I have an externship interview with the PD. Anything in particular that should guide my answers? I know now not to use the phrase "bunch of bad guys" which got a sharp response from her when we spoke last year. and I sure don't want a cv gap after 2L year.

During a bench trial, the judge has far more leeway and can basically ask whatever he/she wants. During a jury trial, the judge should not be asking a lot of questions, but it is the judge's job to interject if questions are getting confusing.

If you don't want the judge asking questions, then object on the record and ask for a mistrial.

I watched a formal disciplinary proceeding one time where the defense was crossing a witness who was also a lawyer (but not the defendant obviously). The tribunal made the ultimate decision on the outcome of the case and had been pretty quiet throughout the trial other than objections and the like. The judge at one point cut off the defense and started going after the witness when his story was unraveling. The witness was an old boy's club lawyer, and the judge was clearly much younger. The witness kept cutting the judge off and talking back to him, purposely evading all his questions despite the judge constantly admonishing him for it. Then the witness responded sarcastically to one of the judge's questions.

It did not end well for the witness.

No jury in Common Pleas. We could have had the case transferred to Superior Court and gotten a jury there, but I'm not really sure what we would have gained by having a jury, and the costs would be greater.

When the judge was questioning my client I felt like it was a continuation of the cross, but after thinking more about it, her first questions were more like asking him to clarify what he thought the contract was. It wasn't until his answers got sketchy that her questions became more pointed and the wheels came off.

I should note also that Delaware Rule of Evidence 614(b), which I believe is the same as the FRE, explicitly permits the judge to question a witness. You can object to a question or line of questioning if it violates some other rule or if it implicates impartiality, but you can't object generally to the questioning itself.

From what I have seen, judges are loath to let litigation turn on procedural or evidentiary issues unless they implicate a serious interest. At the end of the day, people's rights and/or property are at stake, and it is hard to punish the client for his lawyer's miscues. I think that reminding the prosecutor that he hasn't addressed an element of a crime is a little different - I could see that being a burden on defendant's rights. But overall I think it is the interest of justice to have the trial be a place where issues are clarified and facts come out rather than having facts and issues buried in a game of wits between counsel.

When my writing professor told me that half of the people who get the write-on packet don't turn it in I now know why. This sucksssss I'm supposed to be on vacay!

c'mon any real advice here?

I had a job interview on Tuesday for a summer position. If they liked me, they'll call me back next week for a second round interview with the partners (its a small firm.)

Yesterday we got back grades for our pass-fail classes, and I got Honors in one class that's designed to teach real-world lawyer skills (dealing with clients, taking depositions, etc.) Should I relay this grade to the firm?

yes

Most definitely.

Wow, thanks for the quick responses.

Another unrelated question- When applying to Symplicity job postings, is it good to go to the office and drop my application off in person, or is this seen as unecessary/overeager/desperate/whatever?

It's just a no-brainer. The follow-up asserts further interest on your part, and unlike when people often do it, you actually have a piece of substance to add to your follow-up. There's no downside to tactfully throwing in a totally relevant accolade.

They asked the judge beforehand and he said yes. Up here, that is enough if you are worried about not having an insurable interest in the life of the third party. Nonetheless, the rules are pretty lax: a monetary incencitive, unless it is negligible, is usually enough but insurance companies still ask for the consent of the third party on a regular basis.

1k x yes. And smile at anyone in the career office who tells you otherwise.

PDs are all smiles in the interview, but I didn't have anything real good to say. Will hear next after they interview the others.

Apply however the ad says to apply. Bigger firms and like government jobs and such probably have a set protocol for processing applications where going in person when they want fax/email/whatever could hurt or disqualify you, while for small firms it's just gonna be weird when you're creepily hanging around the office.

Yes, as in do turn it in in person or don't?

When the posting specifies, I always do that. My question is about when the posting doesn't expressly say. Also I'm wondering more about small firms.

If you're a good people person to the point that you frequently make a good impression, by all means go drop it off. Give it to whoever is working the front, have a preloaded question like, "Do you know when they're looking to start doing interviews?" If she says she doesn't know, then pleasantly say thank you for taking the resume and go away. If she happens to know and gives you an answer, same thing. There's a chance she could call someone to find out an answer and you could meet someone just to put your face in with your resume and try to make a good impression on them directly. Don't press for this, but if it happens then great.

The first scenario is the most likely one, but even then it can be a little bump. While not in law firms, I've been on the front lines taking a resume from an outsider to a boss before and it's pretty common that I'll be asked what I thought...right away an applicant in that spot probably either gets a bump or gets eliminated. So again, it is partially dependent on your people skills.

This. I have taken resumes before and it either sinks an applicant or it does practically nothing: it is usually, in my experience, more detrimental than anything else. Good candidates would have gotten a callback anyway and the ones who are pretty "meh" resume wise can come off too eager, especially if they insit on lingering around the lobby waiting to see the person in charge of hiring (this is never, never a good idea unless you know that person IRL).

^that I reconsidered last night. I think a follow-up call is better than an in person drop-off. It seems less like a needy person.

nobody itt considered the most important factor of all: how competitive is the position you're applying for?

i'm an advocate for thinking outside the box/guerilla tactics when you're applying for a position that you're either (a) unqualified for or (b) qualified for but likely less desirable than many other applicants.

if your resume alone isn't gonna get you in the door, go there in person and try to make things happen yourself. there's a good chance you'll be seen as overaggressive and get rejected, but you really have nothing to lose.

conversely, if you're summa cum laude at yale and applying for some unpaid internship, then be super risk averse and let your resume do as much work for you as possible.

anyone else taking the june lsat?
can't ****ing wait to get this test over with. been doing nothing but hanging out with my girlfriend, taking practice lsats / specific timed sections and live proing it up all summer.