Man I hate when judges do that. I’m glad you got a nice verdict but you easily might not have with time constraints. My feeling is that the court system should be there for the litigants and especially as a litigant with life altering consequences like a felony conviction.
I understand managing a docket, and some states are ridiculous, like California with its months long trials, but around here, you get two weeks max in a complicated murder case and an hour time limit for closing arguments. I don’t feel that such time constraints are fair at all to a guy that might be spending the rest of his life in prison.
I’ve never encountered a judge doing anything like that, particularly in a criminal trial. They might push hard on you at the planning stage, to make sure you can justify the time you are asking for, but once the trial starts, it’s largely in the hands of the Crown and the defence how long it will take, even if it goes over the time originally planned.
As UV says, when a guy is on trial for the rest of his life, he should be given the time he needs to mount his defence, not an artificial timetable from the judge.
I agree. If the limit is reasonable, I don’t mind. It keeps things moving. But sometimes it’s arbitrary and unworkable. It’s not fair to the parties, who might have spent years and $100,000 in costs to get their day in court with a jury.
I don’t know if they do it in criminal trials. Perhaps not. But many civil trials are pretty high stakes too for the parties.