Craigkess: You don't understand me correctly. Judge Noreika's ruling will not be based solely, nor even consciously, on her prior life, professional experiences or her value system. But unless she is a very rare human being, those things will influence, either subtlety or more overtly, her reaction to the evidence and arguments.

Highly experienced trial lawyers understand this phenomenon of human nature. This is why the best trial lawyers concentrate so heavily on voir diring (questioning) potential jurors during the jury selection process. Who you have in the box, and what each has experienced in their lives up to that moment, makes an enormous difference on how they distill what they hear and see in the courtroom, even though all jurors hear and see the same evidence and arguments. Judges, because they're also human, are subject to the same influences, although usually, but not always, to a lesser degree.

As an example of the above deliberative process, I recall a case I tried in state court in Wisconsin, which allows less than unanimous verdicts in civil cases. The jury returned an 8-2 verdict in my client's favor after a 3 week trial. The trial judge had ruled against me, and in favor of the eminent Milwaukee trial lawyer who was my opponent, on virtually every objection and ruling throughout the trial. After the verdict was read and the jury was excused, the judge volunteered his surprise at the jury's verdict. All 11 potential decision makers had heard and viewed the same case. And notwithstanding the trial judge's unusual commentary on the jury's verdict, my eminent adversary did not file a post trial motion for relief or attempt to perfect an appeal. He knew he had no grounds for either.