At first, the concept seems like a simple solution. But is it??
Chess Clocks To Keep Trial Moving Along
Determined to keep it short, lawyers for Merck & Co. and two men suing the painkiller’s manufacturer have agreed to time limits on testimony and will use tabletop clocks — activated manually, each time one side or the other puts a witness on the stand — to keep track.
When the trial testimony begins March 6, lawyers for plaintiffs Thomas Cona and John McDarby will have 40 hours to present their cases, not including opening statements and closing arguments. Lawyers for Merck will get 35.
The idea for the clocks came after state Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee — who presided over a Vioxx trial that took seven weeks last fall — asked the lawyers for ideas on how to limit the next one’s length.
“In my 36 years experience, I’ve never been under any kind of clock, chess or otherwise,” Alan Klein of Philadelphia said. “Judges move cases along, that’s their function. But I’ve never heard of having to punch a clock.”
The first problem that pops to mind: What does it mean to get into time trouble in the courtroom? If the judge can give you more time, what is the point of the clock? If the judge does not give you more time, can you imagine the implications of your side having to finish up in five minutes regardless of what is going on in the case? This seems like madness!
