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
It depends on the jurisdiction. There are many rules that affect the length of trial, like “one witness, one day” rules and broad deadlines for the presentation of each side’s evidence, taking postponements into account. Many jurisdictions have pre-trial conferences where expected witnesses and the purposes of their testimony will be listed down in advance.
There are also rules for establishing the credibility of expert witnesses for technical details so that the court’s time isn’t wasted.
Latest Answers