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
I believe each side gets to ask for the “time they need” to present their case. And they can argue that what the other side is asking for is unreasonable. So the judge has to rule on all that, just like anything else that the judge has to rule on when there is disagreement over procedure, etc. But no judge is going to sit and listen to either side saying the same thing over and over and over, and no judge is going to sit and listen to either side saying nothing. And do judges favor one side or another unfairly sometimes? Sure. Basically any time a case is successfully appealed, it is because one side was favored in a way that a judge probably could have remedied if they had chosen to do so.
Latest Answers