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
With only a few exceptions (such as capital trials / leniency on capital sentences), court is about picking your best few arguments. Many reasons:
Judges impose page limits on briefs and time limits on oral argument. If it’s not included it doesn’t count. If it’s not developed, it also doesn’t count.
If testimony isn’t relevant it will either get excluded or will irritate the judge and jury.
If testimony is repetitive, the jury often devalues everyone saying it. Two strong, concise witnesses are much better than 9.
The longer a witness testifies the greater the chance they screw up. Lawyers usually advise witnesses to give short answers because they’re easier to keep straight – even when totally truthful. Most people can’t manage paragraph size responses, repeatedly.
Expert witnesses charge by the hour (into thousands) and also run the risk of being boring or 10k feet over the head. Anyone on the jury who likes the subject has probably been kicked off in selection.
A jury that’s worn out or irritated is more likely to vote fast. They can do that.
Latest Answers