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
If you watched the Johnny Depp vs Amber Herd trial, the judge provisioned time for each side to use. They could use their time however they wanted but they were on the clock.
My understanding is that this is not always the case, but be aware that, by the time that a case goes to trial, everyone knows all the evidence, they know generally what will be said and how much content they need to go through. So there is a good idea how much time things will take.
Latest Answers