What sets the length of a courtroom trial? How does the judge determine what’s a “right” amount of time so it doesn’t go forever?

Question

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

Answer 1

In a completely different legal system, but I’ve been present for a large number of criminal cases here in Norway. Sometimes as a witness, but usually to guard the accused during the proceedings.

I have noticed a discrepancy between defense lawyers who are well liked and trusted by their clients, and ones who are actually effective at getting their clients a shorter sentence.

The lawyers who talk a lot in court, droning on and on until everyone has lost track of what their point is, and who argue about everything even when guilt is obvious, tend not to get great results. But their clients, being generally of less than average intelligence, think their lawyer is great since he worked so hard for them.

By contrast, I have observed some lawyers who prefer to not waste time on the obvious. They will instead pick one or two points where the facts might be uncertain, or where there may be reason for leniency if seen in a certain light, and put all their efforts into that. Like surgically applying leverage where it matters, rather than attempting a sort of legal carpet bombing. Their arguments are typically short but effective and to the point, so the court is able to keep it all in mind without getting derailed along the way. These lawyers are, in my experience, much more effective but also less well liked by criminal clients who think they’re slacking off and not arguing enough.