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
In Canada:
It’s generally something estimated based on complexity, and how many witnesses (expert and non-expert) are going to be called by both sides.
They tend to be chosen in 1 week (5 day) blocks. So you decide between 1 – 4 weeks for most trials. Anything more than 4 weeks would likely already have a Judge involved as a Case Management Judge, and that Judge helps pick the length.
Lawyers from both sides discuss how long they think the trial needs to take. They usually agree on a length and then request the trial length with the Court directly. For most regular trials, Judges are often not involved in selecting the length.
During the Trial, Judges can grant more time if needed.
Latest Answers