Robert's Rules of Order famously provides widely accepted guidelines for conducting formal meetings.
Is there an analog for conduct that applies generally or specifically to open sessions of judicial courts?
For example, the Federal Courts provide very detailed rules of procedure, but I can't find anything that covers conduct by admitted parties during a hearing. If Hollywood is to be believed, counselors can interrupt almost anything by shouting, "Objection!" at which point everything else is put on hold while they are allowed to state their objection.
But what if a party to the proceedings who does not "have the floor" wishes to do things like the following:
- Obtain a restatement (perhaps because it was unintelligible, or perhaps as a ploy for emphasis) of something uttered by another.
- Obtain clarification of a statement.
- Determine or clarify the purpose of an ongoing statement or line of questioning
- Determine whether the judge will allow something later in the proceedings. (E.g., "At some point I hope to speak to point X. May I do that now? Or will I be afforded that opportunity at some later point before the conclusion of this hearing?")
(Under Robert's Rules all of these scenarios are covered without recognition by the president as points of order, information, personal privilege, parliamentary inquiry, tabling, taking from the table, reconsidering, appealing, etc. Robert's Rules also make it clear how any such interruption can be addressed and disposed.)