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
Before the trial takes place, there’s a lot of maneuvering on both sides to determine what is officially “evidence” in the case. Testimony/objects/information/etc. can only be presented at trial if it is first recognized as evidence. This is often a decisive phase for a trial. A drug possession case doesn’t really work if the drugs or police testimony are barred from evidence for some reason. It also means that the kind of dramatic surprises you see in courtroom movies are very rare – a surprise witness better also be a surprise to the lawyer who is calling them, or else the judge will ask why no one mentioned this during the months of pre-trial proceedings.
So by the time a trial starts, there’s general agreement on who will testify and even what they will say. When putting together this list, the judge can exclude evidence they think will be irrelevant, but there’s usually a bias towards being very comprehensive and precise, so everyone accepts that a thorough trial may take a few solid days. The trial doesn’t have an explicit time limit – it takes as long as it takes. There’s also no real incentive to intentionally stall – if that was going to be your tactic, better to avoid a trial altogether!
Latest Answers