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
Am a lawyer and I can answer this!
>Seems like this must be a very judge-dependent and judge-controlled thing?
Not really, though the judge does have some input.
>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.
There is actually a rule of evidence that forbids too much repetitive stuff. If you can make your argument with three witnesses, you don’t get to bring in 20 to all say the same thing. And lawyers don’t want to do that, either: very few lawyers actually enjoy trials and would much rather spend as little time as possible making their point.
>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”?
What typically happens is that well before the trial, both sides prepare a witness list and submit it to the court. You don’t need to use everyone on your list (you might have ten people and only use two), but you usually can’t call people who aren’t on your list.
When setting the case for trial, often the judge will ask how many hours or days each witness might need. And the lawyers do a rough estimate, like “I’m only planning on asking an hour’s worth of questions” or “this witness has a lot of info, I may need the whole day.” This is mostly based on their knowledge of what kind of stuff they want out of the witness and what kind of questions they’re going to need to get there. They also know their witnesses’ schedules: they don’t want to make their witness miss weeks of work when they can say what date they need them specifically instead.
Murder trials, needing way more evidence, tend to take weeks because each side is fielding and/or cross-examining witnesses, and you need more information to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil trial can take only a day, depending on what it is.
Just as a fun thing: in the Alex Jones defamation trial in Connecticut, the plaintiffs set aside several days to make their case. At one point, they’d prepared for Alex Jones to potentially testify, and so had set aside several hours to devote to that. Alex Jones ended up not showing up, but they’d told their witnesses “we don’t need you today because we’re handling this guy,” so they just canceled the trial for the day and restarted the next day as if they’d spent the whole prior day in testimony.
The same thing happened with Nikolaus Cruz’s murder trial. The defense had estimated that they’d need days for a lot of witnesses, and then didn’t call most of them. The judge got upset because, though they’re not required to call every witness, they had asked for a lot of time to be set aside only to not use it, which was inconvenient to everyone else involved who maybe had taken off work for trial date weeks in the future, not realizing that their turn would come much earlier.
>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?)
Not really. If a lawyer makes an objection (like “objection, asked and answered” or “objection, repetitive”), the judge can say to the other side, “Counsel, you can move on” or “Counsel, do you have anything else for your client to say?” which are both signs to drop that line of question and either call someone else or move on to another topic.
>I read about the judicial system being swamped, but are judges using time limits to help move things along better?
Not really, since the issue with court backlog is less about not having the time and more like trying to schedule a D&D night that works for all the adults in your friend group. Lawyers with other cases or commitments may not find a date that works for everyone until they start planning months in advance.
There’s also backlog from cases coming in. Remember that a lot of court procedural stuff needs to happen extremely quickly and without warning (like calling in a warrant). So a certain amount of time every day needs to be dedicated to handling that, not just scheduled things.
Latest Answers