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
The judge doesn’t directly set a length for a trial, by saying “this trial will take 10 days” or something like that. The length of a trial depends on how complex the case is. If you have a case about a car crash where one driver is going to testify that the light was red and one driver is going to say it was green, that probably won’t take very long. If you have a financial case where the evidence includes thousands of pages of bank records, and accountants need to testify about what the records mean, that can take a very long time.
The judge influences the length of the trial by ruling on what evidence comes in. Usually, these rulings depend on whether the evidence violates some legal rule meant to ensure reliability. But the judge can also exclude evidence that isn’t very important compared to how much time it would take up, just to speed up the trial and keep it efficient. In federal court, the rule of evidence for this is Rule 403, which allows a judge to exclude evidence based on “undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” A judge can definitely favor one side or the other with these rulings, and the side being ruled against often feels like that’s what’s happening!
Most of the rulings are sorted out before trial, so by the time trial starts everyone has a general idea how many witnesses will testify and how long their testimony will take. The judge and lawyers give a “time estimate,” but it is not a hard limit. The trial will go as long as it takes to finish.
During trial, the judge can also control the courtroom proceedings and can stop questioning of a witness or argument by a lawyer, if it’s getting repetitive and is no longer productive. But judges generally let the lawyers ask as many questions or argue as long as they want, since the wrong ruling might get the case thrown out on appeal. The lawyers are also trying to persuade the jury, not bore them to death, so they have their own incentive to get to the point.
Also, the time estimates are frequently wrong. Trials are chaotic and unpredictable. Another commenter said that trials are “scripted” and there are no surprise witnesses. I disagree. It’s true that you don’t see some important, star witness burst through the doors like on TV. But crazy stuff happens all the time. Witnesses change their testimony or may not show up at all. New evidence might be discovered in the middle of trial. Testimony that was expected to take 20 minutes might take two days, because the witness is difficult or the lawyers have some point to make. And so on. A trial involves many moving parts, including multiple human beings with conflicting goals and personalities, so no one person is in total control.
Source: am a trial lawyer.
Latest Answers