Some
courts are lenient with the amount of time allotted for a trial, some are not.
It certainly can seem impossible, sometimes, to jam the amount of evidence and
testimony you have in the number of hours permitted.
And yet,
as is so often true of many things in life "Less is more."
This was
strongly brought back to mind upon reading one alternate juror’s response to
the verdict in the recent case against Trenton, Ohio Mayor Tony Mack, as reported in The
Trentonian. The alternate juror, Sherie Jackson, was distressed as she
explained to the Judge in a letter post-trial, by what she considered a "rushed
verdict" that was arrived at precipitously because: "In the jury room, I heard
of plans to go on a cruise, to a relative's wedding and an overall atmosphere
of impatience as the trial stretched on" — for a month and one day.
Jurors
who may have had the patience to sit through long trials and long deliberations
some 10 or so years ago, are no longer willing to be held hostage past what
they consider a sufficient rendering of the facts and testimony. Our world has
sped up tremendously: we abbreviate everything, we rely on bullets and
headlines, we expect everything to happen quickly.
This is
one of the great advantages of focus groups: attorneys are forced to reduce
their entire case to a mere hour and a half, which puts a glaring spotlight on
what is essential and what could be left aside.
Yes, you
still must get across your points, you must still develop testimony and present
evidence appropriately. However, in my experience, a great deal can often be
trimmed from the presentation of your case without losing impact. If anything,
you generally gain impact from being succinct.
