Witness called but never heard

[skratz]

(calif) Went to Small Claims (Plaintiff) over some damages. Needed to call two witnesses to support my allegations. The Judge allowed one witness to approach the bench..but as the Judge was confused on another issue (aided by the testimony of the defendant), he stopped the trial to take it "under submission." The witness at the table was never heard, nor did I have a chance to call the other witness. Can a SC Judge rest a case whenever he likes?

[seniorjudge]

Q: Can a SC Judge rest a case whenever he likes?

A: Yes, but you should have spoken up and told the judge that the witness needed to testify.

If the witness would've testified to something new and different, he should've been able to testify.

If the witness was just corroborating something the other witness said, then the judge may have decided that the second witness was not needed.

[skratz]

Yes, the testimony was new (giving motive) as well as my other witness heard the defendant admit to me that he had done the damages. This Judge had assured the courtroom that all would be heard....as one of his cases had gotten out of hand during a prior court session. The Judge cross-examined the Defendant, but never got back to me for rebuttals. The Judge OK'd this witness to come forward, but got sidetracked with what had confused him. I told him that another person in the audience could clarify the issue, and he had that person come up. I never intended on calling this person, and really needed the two witnesses to prove my case. Then the Judge said the case was too complicated and he was taking it "under submission."

I had looked to the Judge to keep the proceedings fair and balanced, but was I wrong. Seems to me that if he was aware of a witness, he would allow that witness to testify. I didn't think that I could challenge the Judge. That is, if he is after the truth....and not just trying to get onto the next case. Hmmmmm....these are the things that one is not taught in all the 'How to prepare...' books.

[seniorjudge]

I didn't tell you to challenge the judge.

I said: "...you should have spoken up and told the judge that the witness needed to testify...."

In any event, if you lose, then appeal.

[skratz]

My understanding is that a Plaintiff in Small Claims cannot appeal....only the Defendant....unless there is a clerical error or wrong law applied. Because the case was "under submission," I received no explanation as to why the Judge ruled against my case, and apparently, they don't have to. I assume that this was a judgment of facts...incomplete facts, from my position.

I realize NOW that I should have made it clear that I had two witnesses at the very beginning. I had assumed (as in a prior case) that the dialog would go back and forth between the Plaintiff and Defendant and I would have time to introduce my witnesses---one of whom had heard the defendant admit to the damages.

However, the trial got bogged down with the Judge trying to understand the area of the damages. Instead of stopping testimony long enough to clarify his confusion, he permitted the defendant plenty of time to fabricate while the Judge grappled with some photos. The testimony was very one sided as a result.

And it remains that the Judge permitted my witness to come forward but rested the case without ever knowing what his testimony was all about. Somehow, that doesn't seem correct behavior of a Judge, who supposedly is after the truth????!!!