Today's episode was the last straw!! I agree that Judges Acker & Dimango have their moments but Judge Corriero totally disregards the facts in the case and makes up new ones. A young Lyft driver sued a woman for literally pulling out of a spot right into his car. She claimed to be parallel parking but clearly she was pulling out. Of course, no insurance!!! Since the plaintiff stated he didn't see her, Judge C took that to mean she was parking rather then the more logical she was pulling out. I don't know about you but I assume parked cars are staying that way. He is such a bleeding heart that it makes it impossible to enjoy the program. Time to hang up the robe!!!
81 Reviews
Objectivity of Judges
msabneutrali29 August 2018
My take on the objectivity of judges (I know it's only TeeVee judging):
Judge Dimango seems to be the most objective / least biased, although she has her moments.
Judge Acker makes an effort to be objective, and sometimes she surprises me with insight, but may be a bit more biased in some areas than Dimango.
Judge Corriero is more interested in showing that he is a really swell guy and a self-appointed moral giant than in following any laws / making an unbiased decision / being fair to people. His statements are full of "virtue-signaling". A man versus a woman will only be able to get any traction if his evidence and behavior and legal basis are absolutely impeccable. Corriero will try to find any weakness in the man and then lecture him.
Judge Dimango seems to be the most objective / least biased, although she has her moments.
Judge Acker makes an effort to be objective, and sometimes she surprises me with insight, but may be a bit more biased in some areas than Dimango.
Judge Corriero is more interested in showing that he is a really swell guy and a self-appointed moral giant than in following any laws / making an unbiased decision / being fair to people. His statements are full of "virtue-signaling". A man versus a woman will only be able to get any traction if his evidence and behavior and legal basis are absolutely impeccable. Corriero will try to find any weakness in the man and then lecture him.
Interesting dynamics
cometseer9 January 2020
I enjoy watching Hot Bench, but I do find it sometimes irritating. I thought Judges are not suppose to make judgment calls or assumptions while deciding the outcome of the court cases. Judge Acker, and Judge DiMango are very loud and opinionated. They constantly comment on what they believe really happened with no real evidence indicating what they're saying. Both, mainly Judge DiMango, is constantly very loud and raises her voice when she speaks to the defendants and plaintiffs. It's like she's scolding them. She also takes over in the deliberation room and talks over Judge Corriero most times. Judge Corriero has a lot to offer but both Judge DiMango and Judge Acker don't give him the opportunity to speak. Both Judge DiMango and Judge Acker converse looking at one another and leave Judge Corriero out of the discussion, like they don't care what he thinks because they only care what they think. Judge DiMango acts like it's her show and not a collaborative effort between all three Judges. I realize it's a show and they need to spice it up for the audience, but please don't call people liars and say what you think really happened, as you weren't there and that is not what judges should be doing. Sometimes I Associate Judge DiMango And Judge Acker like aggressive bullies.
Some of you think Judge Corriero is meek, mild, with some more aggressive moments. I think he doesn't know what to do. He seems to frequently get cut off and left out most times by the other two Judges. There has to be someone out of the three that show concern and compassion. One things for sure, Judge DiMango and Judge Acker are not ones to show any concern or compassion. They definitely think they are the show. Sometimes I think they are both fighting for Judge Judy's position for when she retires. Wouldn't it be funny if Judge Corriero is given the honours! LOL
Some of you think Judge Corriero is meek, mild, with some more aggressive moments. I think he doesn't know what to do. He seems to frequently get cut off and left out most times by the other two Judges. There has to be someone out of the three that show concern and compassion. One things for sure, Judge DiMango and Judge Acker are not ones to show any concern or compassion. They definitely think they are the show. Sometimes I think they are both fighting for Judge Judy's position for when she retires. Wouldn't it be funny if Judge Corriero is given the honours! LOL
Judge Dimango needs to be checked!
wcxkg19 August 2021
I have watched two episodes and both she made extremely offensive comments towards the "litigants".
1: At the end of the case she told a male to take his girlfriend to dinner because "shes skinny". Ummm whaaa?!?
2: Told a African American couple who repeatedly admitted and were open about their financial struggles to "pay their rent on time because it makes it easier for people like us". Umm..who is us? A rich white lady on TV?!?
Terrible!
1: At the end of the case she told a male to take his girlfriend to dinner because "shes skinny". Ummm whaaa?!?
2: Told a African American couple who repeatedly admitted and were open about their financial struggles to "pay their rent on time because it makes it easier for people like us". Umm..who is us? A rich white lady on TV?!?
Terrible!
Judge Da Dingo
ejordan-989-89630424 October 2018
Overall Great, but a lot of Biases
ezjm-0231621 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Let me just begin by saying a majority of cases I feel they handle pretty well, examining most relevant evidence and handling the situation justly. They are much more professional than Judy most of the time.
However, there are several cases where their biases are obviously influencing their judgments. Several cases of ignoring evidence just because they don't like the litigant or it doesn't match their predetermined rulings they have in their mind before the case even began.
They also have a similar problem Judy does, where a litigant will tell their testimony, then the judges assume that just because something doesn't sound like 'common sense' or it's not the action they personally would have done, then the person must be lying. This is another cognitive bias they need to learn to get rid of.
They also take punitive damages a little too far at times, sometimes punishing people who were only looking out for themselves and ended up indirectly harming someone else does not make a case for punitive damages. It's supposed to be used when someone intentionally did something bad to someone else or to abuse the law to their advantage.
(Spoiler recent case) A recent case where an apartment's tenant left her stuff behind 6 weeks after moving out, the landlord had evidence of contacting the tenant trying to get them to pick up their stuff. They show up at the very last minute and bring a friend with them who ends up punching the landlord, yet the tenant is not held responsible at all and still is allowed to get their stuff when it is far past the date. Just because the landlord had a post on Facebook about the tenant losing their TV for not following the rules, the tenant got all their stuff back and the landlord got punitive damages even though she gave them plenty of time to pick up their stuff and she got punched in the face, quite ridiculous.
About the new judge Corriero that replaced Bachman: I really liked Bachman, but there were times where he was kind of biased and decide his rulings based on whether he liked a litigant's actions or not and not based strictly on the law. The other 2 do this way more often, but he is not innocent of it.
There is also some mild sexism I noticed from most of the judges (not just hot bench, but especially on Matthis/Judy), if there's a case where a woman claims a man owes her money, majority of the time the woman will win the case even if it's clear from the beginning the man never considered it a loan, and if the defendant claims 'I never agreed to pay her back, it was a gift' and then the judges say something very sexist such as 'You're a man don't you think you owe it to her to man up.' This kind of thing never happens when a woman owes a man money and they almost always assume it was a gift to her unless the man has mountains of evidence.
However, there are several cases where their biases are obviously influencing their judgments. Several cases of ignoring evidence just because they don't like the litigant or it doesn't match their predetermined rulings they have in their mind before the case even began.
They also have a similar problem Judy does, where a litigant will tell their testimony, then the judges assume that just because something doesn't sound like 'common sense' or it's not the action they personally would have done, then the person must be lying. This is another cognitive bias they need to learn to get rid of.
They also take punitive damages a little too far at times, sometimes punishing people who were only looking out for themselves and ended up indirectly harming someone else does not make a case for punitive damages. It's supposed to be used when someone intentionally did something bad to someone else or to abuse the law to their advantage.
(Spoiler recent case) A recent case where an apartment's tenant left her stuff behind 6 weeks after moving out, the landlord had evidence of contacting the tenant trying to get them to pick up their stuff. They show up at the very last minute and bring a friend with them who ends up punching the landlord, yet the tenant is not held responsible at all and still is allowed to get their stuff when it is far past the date. Just because the landlord had a post on Facebook about the tenant losing their TV for not following the rules, the tenant got all their stuff back and the landlord got punitive damages even though she gave them plenty of time to pick up their stuff and she got punched in the face, quite ridiculous.
About the new judge Corriero that replaced Bachman: I really liked Bachman, but there were times where he was kind of biased and decide his rulings based on whether he liked a litigant's actions or not and not based strictly on the law. The other 2 do this way more often, but he is not innocent of it.
There is also some mild sexism I noticed from most of the judges (not just hot bench, but especially on Matthis/Judy), if there's a case where a woman claims a man owes her money, majority of the time the woman will win the case even if it's clear from the beginning the man never considered it a loan, and if the defendant claims 'I never agreed to pay her back, it was a gift' and then the judges say something very sexist such as 'You're a man don't you think you owe it to her to man up.' This kind of thing never happens when a woman owes a man money and they almost always assume it was a gift to her unless the man has mountains of evidence.
Edited: I can't believe I used to like this...
trafalgardeathsurgeonoflaw29 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
The episodes were decent before and easy to get into and listen to while doing something else.
However, the judges are changing (or I didn't see it when I first got into the series a few seasons ago).
Tanya Acker is becoming one of the worst judges of all time. She is nice enough but she is becoming sexist and rude towards men for no reason (and sometimes women but not as much). Like a guy explained something and she got all offended because she knew that something and snapped at him and when his co-plaintive said something, she thanked her and made a rude snide remark about the man explaining something to her. Like grow up. You're a judge. Don't get angry over simple things.
ETA I stand corrected that Judge Acker is becoming the worse it is Dimango. I decided to watch a new episode from today (Monday May 9th, 2022) and Dimango was so snappy towards the male plaintive. He purchased games on his credit card and the interaction was
"How did I know you purchased these games!?"
"On the next page is my receipt"
"How do I know this is your receipt!?"
"It has my credit card number"
"How do I know this is your credit card number!?"
He had his card and was going to give it to the bailiff and the Dimango was like "Then give it, do you think I'm going to take your word for it!?"
He was giving the card, you don't need to be so dang rude!
Dimango made this go down to 1 star from 3. What ever the cause of her being this jerky shouldn't even be allowed on a TV show portraying judge and lawsuits. Fake or not.
However, the judges are changing (or I didn't see it when I first got into the series a few seasons ago).
Tanya Acker is becoming one of the worst judges of all time. She is nice enough but she is becoming sexist and rude towards men for no reason (and sometimes women but not as much). Like a guy explained something and she got all offended because she knew that something and snapped at him and when his co-plaintive said something, she thanked her and made a rude snide remark about the man explaining something to her. Like grow up. You're a judge. Don't get angry over simple things.
ETA I stand corrected that Judge Acker is becoming the worse it is Dimango. I decided to watch a new episode from today (Monday May 9th, 2022) and Dimango was so snappy towards the male plaintive. He purchased games on his credit card and the interaction was
"How did I know you purchased these games!?"
"On the next page is my receipt"
"How do I know this is your receipt!?"
"It has my credit card number"
"How do I know this is your credit card number!?"
He had his card and was going to give it to the bailiff and the Dimango was like "Then give it, do you think I'm going to take your word for it!?"
He was giving the card, you don't need to be so dang rude!
Dimango made this go down to 1 star from 3. What ever the cause of her being this jerky shouldn't even be allowed on a TV show portraying judge and lawsuits. Fake or not.
Informative
rjg_trollqueen31 March 2016
I am shocked by the other reviews. I like Hot Bench the best of all the "judge" shows. It is more informative than any of the others. You don't just have a court case and a verdict. It is more in-depth. You get to hear what the judges are thinking in terms of what evidence was lacking, how the litigants should have proceeded, and how important selecting the most appropriate wording for your court papers are.
For example, in one episode, the judges discussed how unfortunate it was that the plaintiff did not sue the defendant under a different category, because they then would have been able to award damages to the plaintiff. You learn a great deal from the deliberation portion of the show. You get to understand what compels the judges to rule they way they did on each case. This is what sets it apart from all other similar shows.
I love the show. I would hate to see it canceled.
For example, in one episode, the judges discussed how unfortunate it was that the plaintiff did not sue the defendant under a different category, because they then would have been able to award damages to the plaintiff. You learn a great deal from the deliberation portion of the show. You get to understand what compels the judges to rule they way they did on each case. This is what sets it apart from all other similar shows.
I love the show. I would hate to see it canceled.
This is more fun than Judge Judy!
beachmeisters24 December 2014
My husband and I actually like this program more than Judge Judy. Part of the reason is because it's interesting to have the different judges ask their respective questions of the plaintiffs and defendants, plus it's fun to listen to them deliberate behind closed doors. They're fun personalities, too, although sometimes they get serious and scold the people who are before them. What's really fascinating is that some people go in, only asking for small amounts of money. What's up with that? Are they only interested in being on TV? Whatever.. it's really interesting to see what kinds of situations people can get themselves into.
They're So NOT Judge Judy
abtwo6 July 2019
I don't know how this show has remained on the air for 5 years. Judge Judy created it, but these judges don't compare well to her. Perhaps it's their focus on achieving unanimity that makes too many of their decisions seem unfair. Oftentimes, I find myself agreeing with Judge Acker when she dissents. (Although she was never on the bench in real life, she's the best judge on this panel, IMHO.) Judge Corriero wears his heart on his sleeves, sometimes inappropriately. I was gobsmacked when he practically apologized to a pit bull owner for ruling in favor of the plaintiff who had sued her for damages related to an attack by the defendant's dog. Whaaat?!? Lastly, what's up with Judge DiMango and Judge Corriero's inability (or refusal) to call the litigants by their names. Every one is "you," "he," "she".... They disrespect the litigants by not bothering to address them by name. Plus, for those of us who aren't staring at the TV the entire time to see on whom the camera is focused (because we're multi-tasking), it's hard to follow along. Even Judge Judy, who is probably older than DiMango and Corriero, can recall and use the names of the parties who come before her. How hard is that? (And if it is hard, the show's producers should place name cards on the front of the podia.) "Hot Bench" is amateur hour compared to Judge Judy. She should give Judge Acker her own show and be done with it.
Love This Show
marync-978472 March 2017
I love this show, I don't understand what the other reviewer was talking about I really miss Judge Backman. I hope he comes back. The new judge is nice but I really like the dynamics between the other 3 I hope he didn't quit because of his jealous ex who keep writing nasty reviews Please bring back Judge Backman for a guest judge the new judge is nice he's growing on me Love the other two. Being an Italian I totally relate to Patricia Judge Acker reminds me of my daughter (My daughter is also and attorney). Love the shop
you're kidding
geoffox-766-4184671 June 2015
This is a court? the judges are from SNL right? Three of the most hysterical people you'll ever want to meet. You can't take this seriously. An African American woman and a blonde against one single male make decisions. What they say is a joke. Can't believe Judge Judy is behind this. Always thought Judy was smart and knew better. But these three bimbos should have their own comedy show. Wait, they do. And it's called Hot Bench. Ha ha. Are three judges on a case legal? I know in the military courts it is but never heard of a three-man (excuse me one man,two women) before. However, it's an amusing way to waste an hour in the morning. And what's with the blonde judge's accent? Brooklyn? Queens? Sort of a female Archie Bunker. The lone male judge seems a bigoted idiot and sounds stupid in his arguments. When the three get together after not too much interrogation is where the comedy begins in their reasoning with each other. Right out of a Marx Brothers movie. Only the Marx Brothers were talented. Do these three have degrees? Hard to believe. Upon seeing the Three Stooges Judge program a second time, I still cannot believe they are still on the air. Judge Judy, please get them off for the sanity of all of us. And what's with a judge looking like some grade B Hollywood blonde wannabe. She is ugly and badly needs to get her GD hair out of her face. This is a court of law not some runway model show, although honey, you ain't no model. The African American lady only one with any class. Too bad she is outshone by the bimbo and male idiot. The male judge likes center stage and talks like some reject from Queens. The male and bimbo are the worst ever to look at and hear. Judy get rid them for all of us. Let the news continue without this comedy of judges.
Loved before change of judges
rachelbeauchemin31 October 2022
I absolutely loved Hot Bench! Have watched Hot Bench for many years. Have even recorded it and watched it later and sometimes over and over for years.....but, the new judges don't work. Help!! The old judges had chemistry and were fun to watch. Just Not so as of 10/31/22. The Prior judges work well together and had differing viewpoints that when they collaborated came confidently and professionally out but were all equal. I'm afraid you will lose viewership moving forward without the positive fun energy. You will lose mine. I will move to another court show, there are plenty on, lots of options.
Pleas bring the terrific Trio back!
Pleas bring the terrific Trio back!
LOVE THE SHOW.....BUT!
vsecrease15 March 2018
First of all, no, I have never been on this show. I love the idea of 3 judges and being able to see their discussion. The problem that I have with this show is Judge Corriero.....he will ALWAYS side with the female, ESPECIALLY if it is a single mom, he sides with anyone who brings in a child, he is so touchy, feely, sing Koombyya that it just turns me off. He needs to get a little tougher...the only time I saw him raise his voice was at a man who he felt took advantage of a female....without letting the guy give his side of the story. He needs to go...on the opposite end, the two female judges have more moxy than Corriero...they see right through the liars where Corriero does not.
I concur withe first review
retiredmike4623 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
These judges are a joke, I don't know what their total background is but I doubt if they're sitting judges. I am nont a lawyer but I do have a law background. At times one of the judges frequently shows racism in her statements. When one plaintiff asked for damages to her car caused by the defendant. The judges decide that the defendant was responsible,but they thought that the amount on the estimate was about 60% of the cars value, so they only gave her $300 instead of the $2,000 that the estimate called for. She needed to be made whole again. $2,000 would have made her whole and returned her car to the condition it was in before the defendant damaged it. $300 doesn't even begin to repair it. Either the judges are incompetent or the were only allowed to sign for wiretaps or other menial task that need someone with the title.
TIME TO WRAP UP PRODUCTION
jerseysmells24 October 2018
This trio has got to go. I have never seen such a miscarriage of justice as I did yesterday. This concerns the psychopath that killed his neighbor's dog. His story of lies had so many holes in it, a three year old could have seen this man for the killer that he is. And his body language also was a definite indicated of how sick this man truly is. What were the judges' problem? How could they have been so wrong? I have watched this show since day one, but no more. This episode will be the last one I ever watch. It was so egregious, I hope it is the downfall of the show and the judges.
Corriero doesnt get it
bdxyzabc9 May 2022
It realY BOTHERS Judge Corriero wnthen an achild is suing aparent. He believes that it is wron to sue a parent or grandparent . He should leave the show because he doesnt think parents can be at fault. His concern is old fashioned Italian family structure.
Judge Corriero needs to retire!
hipkitty-583813 January 2024
Judge Corriero needs to retire, he gets angry and annoyed real quick. He's a bleeding heart when he sees tears, I have noticed that his eyes appear to be closed sometimes when they are deliberating the cases. He occasionally show annoyance when the other 2 judges don't agree with his decision. I think he is biased in some of the cases that are presented to them, that the other judges have to rectify. He did fairly well with Judges Acker and DiMaggio but would sometimes show annoyance with them also. He uses words to that are way over the heads of the litigants. This is court tv, not Supreme Court,
Worse show idea ever!
ljacksen7717 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
These 3 judges are arrogant and truly justify our unjust system. Judges should only rule on behalf of the law. Not their personal "feelings" about a person. I have watched several of their shows and the verdicts are alarming to me. They have their noses in the air and talk down to people. Unfortunately, there are more of these type of judges determining our fate then there should be. Our legal system is not working on ethics of right or wrong but on character and that wasn't the purpose when it was designed so many years ago. I love these type of shows and loved judge Judy and am very disappointed these 3 have been put in the same classification as her or the few others that are still out there. Please take this off the air, they are only making our system look bad!
love this show
jdoheny-4224716 March 2017
I love this show and I feel that most times the judges have it right. sometimes they are not too nice but neither is judge Judy. They are not their to be the defendant;s friend and in most cases i agree with their verdict. Most of the defendants are guilty and you can tell almost right away that they are lying and trying to get money that they are not entitled to.
HOT TRASH
Johnny_West25 January 2022
A retired New York City judge and two lawyers pretend to serve justice to the hoi polloi common folk while yelling at them and degrading them in every way. This show was created by Judge Judy, and it has her style of mean & vile treatment of people.
Good judges did a good job
horseychick27 September 2015
It appears that most of the reviews on here must be from losers on the show, sore losers, I might add. Our experience on the show, upcoming, not yet aired, was that the judges did a good job, asked viable questions and ruled in a common sense and fair manner. They took the information given, paid attention to the way questions were answered and did what any judges should do, rule fairly. I was concerned after reading these reviews that we had made the wrong decision about going on the show, I wondered if it would be a fair and realistic court decision. After 5 minutes in the courtroom I knew that the judges were taking this case seriously and would rule in a just manner. I was glad then that we made the decision to go on Hot Bench.
Sexist male judge
areos-028952 August 2018
The male judge - Michael Corriero - bends over backwards to try to view women as innocent victims. He is also full of lectures to men along the lines of "Men pay for the little lady, do you understand young man?" He fancies himself a "real man" and intends to show other men how to be real men (with his high-pitched voice that goes even higher during his rants). He's disgustingly transparent.
this show is awful
hrtlinku-237-83605012 February 2015
They are arrogant and base their decisions on their opinions of the people rather than merit. I cannot possibly see this show lasting very long. I have watched this show at least a dozen times and based on my view - it seems they always find in favor of those that have the better intellect than the other person involved. At times cutting off someones answer with their arrogance.
They also seem to favor those people that they like rather than anything to do with the case. Relying heavily on the person with the best emotions. The one case that I saw recently one of the people clearly seemed either autistic or some mental challenges and they seemed to treat him as he was on drugs. Shame on them.
They also seem to favor those people that they like rather than anything to do with the case. Relying heavily on the person with the best emotions. The one case that I saw recently one of the people clearly seemed either autistic or some mental challenges and they seemed to treat him as he was on drugs. Shame on them.
This show is awful
gitzo12318 November 2014
This show is awful. All 3 judges act like they're angry all the time. They don't sound professional. The guttural pronunciation of some words give the impression of low education: for example "dollars" is pronounced as "dahhhhlahhhhs". These judges are arrogant and condescending. When they go into the judges' chambers, their discussions are so obviously scripted. They really look like fools and I have a hard time accepting them as true officers of the court. I believe they're trying to mimic Judge Judy, but no one will ever come close to her. I realize this is Judge Judy's brainchild, but this show needs to be taken off the air a.s.a.p. !!!!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
