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
>Seems like this must be a very judge-dependent and judge-controlled thing?
Not really. There’s a phase before the trial begins called ‘discovery’, where the attorneys make a list of the evidence and witenesses they intend to show to the jury. As others in this thread have pointed out, the dramatic trope of the [surprise witness](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SurpriseWitness) is completely not allowed, and can cause a mistrail, and often results in disciplinary actions for the lawyer who fails to disclose all the evidence in the case.
Getting back to your question, the judge examines the evidence that each litigant / counsel wants to present, and budgets sufficient time for it to be shown. But, there are rules as to what kinds of evidence is admissible and pertinent, and a lawyer will waste the court’s time at his client’s peril, as well as his own.
Latest Answers