Judge Joe Brown doesn't like that a professional wedding photog showed up with a Rebel xti and 18-55mm lens. Defendant makes crazy claims about her camera. Judge happens to know a thing or two about photography. Hilarity ensues.
A lot of times you get what you pay for and I wouldn't expect to much for 1300.00. A quality wedding photographer is going to cost you a lot more than that. Judge/Photographer Brown should of known that and taken that into consideration IMHO. It looked like Judge Brown was more interested in spouting techno babble to impress the audience than he was in being a impartial judge.
though i agree that judge brown was trying to impress the viewers, his verdict was spot on, imo. the photographers were deceitful, thus the judgement being 2.5x what the plaintiff was suing for.
Arent most of the court show cases previously decided in an actual court? Then the TV judges can play up however they want to reach the same decision the actual court came to. I heard the producers go through hundreds of Cali court cases to find the interesting ones then contact the Plaintiffs and Defendants and pay them to recreate the case on television. This would atleast explain how Judge Joe Brown could escape an appeal that the judge was not fair and impartial.
It seemed like the judge was out to get the defendant from the beginning. Not that I disagree with him; using a kit lens for pro wedding photography is definitely decietful. Plus you would think a pro photographer would at least understand f-stops and ISO, which this lady clearly did not.
It was very funny to watch - I love how he hounds her on the F-stop she was using. Plus the fact that she was not using flash to take the inside pictures....If the preist was really that sensitive she should have brought him as a witness to court - otherwise her arguments are nothing.
Linear Mode
