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
First off most cases have very little evidence so there simply isn’t much to present. Also, lawyers want the shortest trial possible, not longest. They generally get paid by the case and would make less money if they spent extra time on each one. Ultimately nobody really sets the length of a trial though. Each side is given as much time as they want. The judge can step in and rule evidence inadmissible which will shorten things, but they don’t just set a hard limit.
Latest Answers