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 federal civil cases the judge gives each side a specific amount of time, say 12 hours, and you use it as you please but if you run out, you’re done. Like a chess clock.
The parties submit requests for the amount of time they think they need, and the judge cuts it waaay back. You end up cutting out witnesses and evidence just to stay within the time allotted.
The judge can game it as you suggest but more importantly, one side’s case is often quite simple while the opponent’s is nuanced and complex. 50-50 favors the simple.
Latest Answers