See subjects. Watched Zimmerman trial.
Dickens and Kafka have written novels about the terrible length of some cases, providing a sense of entrapment and bewilderment quite Dickensian and Kafka-esque, respectively.
Did you give any actual thought to this question? Just curious.
Well, yes.
Are you suggesting I google “it?”
That differing unique comments and references might not be supplied?
That I don’t supply sufficient original research to SD?
That I am troubling Cecil, Administrators, Moderators, Members, and Guests by posting the queries?
That I am wasting bandwidth and storage space at SD?
Your post, and my reply, has caused the last-named.
What I’m suggesting is that if you thought about it for even a moment you wouldn’t compare the length of a trial to the length of a summation. Would you like to take a stab at why or do you just want me to tell you?
The subject header is in two parts.
Is there a limit to the length of jury trials? Is there a limit to any subsection of a trial, and I am thinking, that perhaps that that part of a trial is marked off in some way regarding new evidence or other lawyer stuff.
Please do not reply to me personally in that tone. If you do so because of a comment I made on one of yours, and you are still offended, I can only encourage you to re-examine the tone and content of mine.
And, FWIW, your “…would you just like me to tell you” is a quite extraordinary statement in GQ. Yes, that’s why they’re called general questions. Is it an ultimatum? Or just more snark, like this very sentence. I am not happy with writing those sentences here or in my previous post, as inviting as it can be. Previous to any possible mod note, I will not continue it.
It’s not snark, just genuine . . . surprise. Even w/o any legal training I would imagine that a trial would take as long as justice required while the length of a summation would be largely within the discretion of the court subject to certain considerations of justice. That much seems patently obvious to me actually.
What stops a defense lawyer filibustering ?
I think the barister would say its a crazy idea to attempt a filibuster.
- In a jury trial, the jury mayl react against a party that presents a desperate , time wasting, argument … It looks like the barrister is saying his actual argument is of no value.
…Doing something like starting on a filibuster devalues the rest of his argument. - the Judge get wise to filibuster tactics and say “since you are now talking uselessly you have ended your summation” and silences him.
Given the prosecution has already finished their case, mostly, the filibuster is not going to stop the jury deliberating…
3a. Judge may give the barrister a bill for the time wasted…
3b It would be difficult to pass that to the client - the client may even sue barrister for malpractice - losing the case, , or overcharging (by taking too long to do one job.)
4.a. Judge Recommends Barrister get Disbarred…
4.b. If its a defendant representing himself, judge could send defendant for psychological assessment… also jury thinks same , and can therefore think defendant is guilty …
A trial judge has significant control over the presentation of evidence. See Florida Rule of Evidence 90.403 (explaining that relevant evidence is inadmissible “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by . . . needless presentation of cumulative evidence”).
Yeah, IIRC, if the defence (or prosecution) insists on a parade of witnesses - “we’ll get every one of the 50,000 people in the stadium that day to tell us what they saw…” According to my Law and Order training, the judge will soon ask if these witnesses have anything substantially more or different to add and if not, deny the request to subpoena them or have them appear. IIRC the typical expression is “Let’s move it along”. Or the other side will concede after the first two witnesses “we don’t contest the point that xxxxxx happened as described. No need for further testimony.” (I.e. we don’t need a parade of witnesses saying how the defendant was a good boy and the deceased is bad bad bad. it’s irrelevant to the trial). Real “long” trials will often be the Enron type, where the issue is buried undr walls of documents and there are an incredible number of nuanced points that must be covered and explained in detail (in both sides’ different versions).
Perhaps a real lawyer will pipe in here (IANAL, surprise) but I believe that a trial is scheduled based on a rough guess how long it will take. If it happens to run much longer, especially a non-jury trial, it is occasionally not surprising if it is scheduled to resume quite a while later once the pre-scheduled other cases are dealt with.
OTOH, the problem is not the trial itself. IIRC in The Simpson trial, he said he wanted the fastest trial he could get - it still took a year. Casey Anthony, it was widely reported, spent 3 years in jail until her trial was heard. The trial itself was pretty quick. (Many manslaughter cases in Canada result in less jail time than that. Until recently, in Canada, she would have gotten time-and-a-half for time served before trial, an incentive for prosecutors to move things along. Then she would have been out after a third of her sentence with good behaviour, so if she’d been convicted and gotten 12.5 years and the case was in Canada she would have been free even if convicted. )
Then there’s the appeal process… especially if the person gets the death penalty.
Most trials are wrapped up with the long wait for an available judge, then motions after motions about what is admissible, appeals of these to higher courts, etc. I don’t think Dickens’ story or the real-life example in Britain were all trial - they simply put off the final trial forever.
And why would your wild ass guesses be relevant to a GQ thread? Heck, why would your surprise be relevant? If I posted how many times I’m surprised someone doesn’t know something in GQ, I’d probably be banned.
And why in the world do you think he was talking as if either one was related to the other? He just asked two questions: is there a time limit to a trial, and is there a time limit for summations?
I’ve read a number of Leo’s posts in GQ and get the impression that he rarely gives much thought to them. This just happened to one example I thought was so flagrant that I had to comment. If that bothers you, bummer.
Due Process and a right to a fair trial mandate that there be NO litmus/bright line #'s.
The McMartin pre-school preliminary hearing lasted Months, that was just the pre-lim.
There is a point to where the Judge wil instruct Counsel that the process needs to be speeded up, but s/he has to keep in mind the Prejudicial effect.
The judge is the superintendent of the trial. He or she is permitted to use his or her sound discretion to quash the introduction of irrelevant or needlessly duplicative evidence or dilatory argumentation. If it is appealed (on the grounds that the parties have a Due Process right to make their case), the judge’s ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion, a very lenient standard that inquires whether the ruling was basically wholly unwarranted.
Dickens was writing about a civil case in the 19th century. Chancery, where the case concerning a will (Jarndyce vs Jarndyce). Because there are so many litiogants withj so many lawyers the case drags on for years. You should not assume a continuous hearing - there will have been weeks, months and even years between appearances in court.
Of course the case draws to a close when the money runs out.
[moderating]
Deltasigma, this thread is in GQ, where we expect the first few responses to be constructive and/or informative. If you wish to bait an OP or question his motives, do it in a GD or Pit thread.
[/moderating]
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:15, topic:663394”]
[moderating]
Deltasigma, this thread is in GQ, where we expect the first few responses to be constructive and/or informative. If you wish to bait an OP or question his motives, do it in a GD or Pit thread.
[/moderating]
[/quote]
If the staff has no objection in cases like this then I certainly will withhold any I might have in the future.
Thank you.
Just because the answer of a question is obvious to you (or anyone else here) doesn’t mean it’s obvious to everybody else. I think this was a reasonable question for GQ.
To be clear about which novels are being mentioned–and to recommend them–they are Dickens Bleak House and Kafka The Trial/Ger. Der Prozess.