Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr. See Rating Details
District Judge See Comments
D.Me.  
Average Rating:5.1 - 6 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:




Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
   
Confirm E-mail Address      
Zip
Occupation
Add a comment only

Ratings

*Temperament:   (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
*Scholarship:   (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
*Industriousness:   (1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
*Ability to Handle Complex Litigation:    (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
*Punctuality:    (1=Chronic`y Late,10=Always on Time)
*Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation:    (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
*Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation:   (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Flexibility In Scheduling   (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Pre-Trial:   (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Civil Settlement Discussions:   (1=Least Involved,10=Most Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Trial:    (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Sentencing:    (1=Most Lenient,10=Most Harsh)
Typical Discount Off Guidelines for Cooperators:    (1=10%,10=100%)
  Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating
Comments



What others have said about Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr.


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 20794
Rating:3.6
Comments:
Lazy, arrogant. Judge Carter all over again. Judge Woodcock is in a love affair with Judge Woodcock.

Prosecutor

Comment #: 19306
Rating:3.7
Comments:
Judge Woodcock is much better than Gene Carter, but not as good as Singal and a far far distance below Hornby.

Litigant

Comment #: 12905
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This Judge has taken away any confidence that I had left in our judicial system. It is no wonder that in our society many people bring frivolous lawsuits against companies who simply settle out of court because they have learned what I just learned, our judicial system is not fair and it is in large part because of weak judges who don’t have to worry about their jobs. My first exposure to a Federal Court, which I had held in the utmost esteem, was a plaintiff walking into the courtroom wearing a uniform that he was directly prohibited from wearing by Judge Woodcock. The Judge did nothing and ignoring the Federal Judge had no consequences. What I will never forget is Judge Woodcock calling our attorney to a side bar during opening statements to tell him to lay off the other party because we were being too passionate in our defense and had already made our point. Judge Woodcock is truly amazing to be able to get into the heads of all of the jurors. I thought the court system was in place for that exact reason, to allow people to passionately defend themselves and to dispense justice. B.S. our court system allows these judges to extend their personal feeling and beliefs while having job security regardless of their performance.

Litigant

Comment #: 7605
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This judge actually went right on ruling in a case where a demand for recusal was filed. There was never a recusal hearing. Instead, after a month and a half of objections from the plaintiff, he finally sat down at his desk and wrote his own denial of recusal. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that if there is a hint of bias or prejudice, the judge must recuse himself. Not this guy.

Litigant

Comment #: 7596
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Woodcock needs to remove himself from the bench. He is biased and prejudiced against a pro se plaintiff. He deliberately showed favor to the top officials of Maine when he refused to allow the plaintiff pro se to go forward with her claim and to add defendants to that claim as they became known. He recused himself only when plaintiff was forced to add him as a defendant because of his biased/prejudiced behavior, and further he threatened plaintiff with sanctions if she continued to file her "frivolous" complaints and filings which in truth were legal and proper. His behavior is scandalous and he is unfit to be a federal judge. The U.S. Supreme Court says that in the interest of justice, a pro se's amended complaints must be accepted.