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
Most trials are fairly short without much issue or time and the judge and will conduct it in a timely manner. They may not even last a day, they may last just hours, or even less.
Usually there just isn’t much to present in the actual courtroom (nearly all of the work is done long before you ever enter a court room), there aren’t that many witnesses, or exhibits, or experts or anything that take up time.
You are often led astray by seeing news articles about highly complicated, newsworthy trials, that may last days, or weeks, or months, but these are the extreme outliers… which is often both why they are newsworthy, and circularly, why they last so long (also, money is a big factor, high priced lawyers may want to drag it out for various reasons)
Latest Answers