What sets the length of a courtroom trial? How does the judge determine what’s a “right” amount of time so it doesn’t go forever?

Question

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

Answer 1

>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,

It’s actually the exact opposite of that. Prosecuters and defense attorneys generally prefer to use the least amount of witnesses possible because:

(a) Witnesses are people and people are unreliable, especially when put on the stand and are expected to tell a very specific story in front of a room full of people with the added pressure of telling your version of the story in a way that is convincing.

(b) Witnesses are subject to cross examination by the opposing attorneys. Most witnesses are just regular people who have never been on the stand before and they lack experience in providing testimony. Meanwhile, the opposing attorney has a ton of experience in cross examination and can easily frame together a series of questions that will get the witness to contradict or at least cast doubt on their own testimony. This can be especially hurtful to the prosecution and beneficial to the defense.

(c) Even expert witnesses who are brought in to testify about a very specific aspect to the case can be tripped up by an experienced attorney during cross examination. On top of that, expert witnesses can be very expensive, and if any level of govt is involved as a plaintiff or defendant, that cost is passed on to the taxpayer, so it’s important that these types of witnesses are used as sparingly as possible.