Seems like this must be a very judge-dependent and judge-controlled thing? I imagine lawyers must want to try to throw in the kitchen sink and have tons and tons of witnesses going down every rabbit hole, but the judge has to say no to some things.
Do they set a time limit based on the complexity of the topic? Do they make a gut feel call about whether any particular witness actually adds new information and say “that’s enough”?
Can the judge “game” this and favor one side (intentionally or unintentionally if they don’t believe the side saying that more complexity and duration of witnesses is needed, like for example in a complicated technical case?)
I read about the judicial system being swamped, but are judges using time limits to help move things along better?
In: 2116
If you watched the Johnny Depp vs Amber Herd trial, the judge provisioned time for each side to use. They could use their time however they wanted but they were on the clock.
My understanding is that this is not always the case, but be aware that, by the time that a case goes to trial, everyone knows all the evidence, they know generally what will be said and how much content they need to go through. So there is a good idea how much time things will take.
First off most cases have very little evidence so there simply isn’t much to present. Also, lawyers want the shortest trial possible, not longest. They generally get paid by the case and would make less money if they spent extra time on each one. Ultimately nobody really sets the length of a trial though. Each side is given as much time as they want. The judge can step in and rule evidence inadmissible which will shorten things, but they don’t just set a hard limit.
Before the trial takes place, there’s a lot of maneuvering on both sides to determine what is officially “evidence” in the case. Testimony/objects/information/etc. can only be presented at trial if it is first recognized as evidence. This is often a decisive phase for a trial. A drug possession case doesn’t really work if the drugs or police testimony are barred from evidence for some reason. It also means that the kind of dramatic surprises you see in courtroom movies are very rare – a surprise witness better also be a surprise to the lawyer who is calling them, or else the judge will ask why no one mentioned this during the months of pre-trial proceedings.
So by the time a trial starts, there’s general agreement on who will testify and even what they will say. When putting together this list, the judge can exclude evidence they think will be irrelevant, but there’s usually a bias towards being very comprehensive and precise, so everyone accepts that a thorough trial may take a few solid days. The trial doesn’t have an explicit time limit – it takes as long as it takes. There’s also no real incentive to intentionally stall – if that was going to be your tactic, better to avoid a trial altogether!
>I imagine lawyers must want to try to throw in the kitchen sink and have tons and tons of witnesses going down every rabbit hole,
It’s actually the exact opposite of that. Prosecuters and defense attorneys generally prefer to use the least amount of witnesses possible because:
(a) Witnesses are people and people are unreliable, especially when put on the stand and are expected to tell a very specific story in front of a room full of people with the added pressure of telling your version of the story in a way that is convincing.
(b) Witnesses are subject to cross examination by the opposing attorneys. Most witnesses are just regular people who have never been on the stand before and they lack experience in providing testimony. Meanwhile, the opposing attorney has a ton of experience in cross examination and can easily frame together a series of questions that will get the witness to contradict or at least cast doubt on their own testimony. This can be especially hurtful to the prosecution and beneficial to the defense.
(c) Even expert witnesses who are brought in to testify about a very specific aspect to the case can be tripped up by an experienced attorney during cross examination. On top of that, expert witnesses can be very expensive, and if any level of govt is involved as a plaintiff or defendant, that cost is passed on to the taxpayer, so it’s important that these types of witnesses are used as sparingly as possible.
Judges have a lot of leeway when deciding how their courts should be run. But you might be imagining things like TV shows or movie depictions of trials.
Trials are very “scripted”. Lawyers don’t get to introduce surprise witnesses, they cannot suddenly drop in new evidence. There are usually things like pre-trial conferences, depositions taken from witnesses, etc etc that both sides participate in separately and together. By the time the trial starts, they know exactly who will be called to witness and probably have a really good guess as to how the witness will respond.
Judges take a VERY dim view if they think a lawyer is wasting time. By the time the trial starts, all evidence and witness statements are ALREADY ON RECORD. A witness changing their statements during trial will be, at a minimum, scolded by the judge.
Pretty much the facts of the case (as far as possible) will already be agreed to by both sides before trial. The lawyers argue their case but they cannot simply add to facts without giving the other side an opportunity to review and examine before trial.
99.9% of the time, lawyers AVOID pissing off the judge. In fact that might the biggest rule for trial lawyers. The defendant might be facing the judge and trial for the first time but lawyers have to deal with the same set of judges pretty often. Piss off the judge enough and the judge can request for a sanction on the lawyer. Few lawyers will risk this since this is their livelihood not to mention their professional, sworn duty.
Most trials are fairly short without much issue or time and the judge and will conduct it in a timely manner. They may not even last a day, they may last just hours, or even less.
Usually there just isn’t much to present in the actual courtroom (nearly all of the work is done long before you ever enter a court room), there aren’t that many witnesses, or exhibits, or experts or anything that take up time.
You are often led astray by seeing news articles about highly complicated, newsworthy trials, that may last days, or weeks, or months, but these are the extreme outliers… which is often both why they are newsworthy, and circularly, why they last so long (also, money is a big factor, high priced lawyers may want to drag it out for various reasons)
By the time the judge is making a decision like this, all the evidence that is going to be presented is known by both sides, and by the judge. The amount and complexity of that evidence is a pretty good indicator for how long the trial should take.
It depends on the jurisdiction. There are many rules that affect the length of trial, like “one witness, one day” rules and broad deadlines for the presentation of each side’s evidence, taking postponements into account. Many jurisdictions have pre-trial conferences where expected witnesses and the purposes of their testimony will be listed down in advance.
There are also rules for establishing the credibility of expert witnesses for technical details so that the court’s time isn’t wasted.
With only a few exceptions (such as capital trials / leniency on capital sentences), court is about picking your best few arguments. Many reasons:
Judges impose page limits on briefs and time limits on oral argument. If it’s not included it doesn’t count. If it’s not developed, it also doesn’t count.
If testimony isn’t relevant it will either get excluded or will irritate the judge and jury.
If testimony is repetitive, the jury often devalues everyone saying it. Two strong, concise witnesses are much better than 9.
The longer a witness testifies the greater the chance they screw up. Lawyers usually advise witnesses to give short answers because they’re easier to keep straight – even when totally truthful. Most people can’t manage paragraph size responses, repeatedly.
Expert witnesses charge by the hour (into thousands) and also run the risk of being boring or 10k feet over the head. Anyone on the jury who likes the subject has probably been kicked off in selection.
A jury that’s worn out or irritated is more likely to vote fast. They can do that.
It’s really up to the court. Judge, clerks, etc. Some judges may grant continuances and such all willy nilly, other judges will deny.
Also, backlogs are real. In low population areas, court dates may be swift. In high population areas, it may take weeks or months just to be arraigned, then years to ever see an actual court room.
It’s really and truly a “YMMV” situation.
Latest Answers