Civil Justice on Hold: Why America’s Lawsuits Move at a Snail’s Pace
Why does it take so long to resolve civil cases in both federal and state courts?
Even though approximately 95 to 97 percent of civil cases settle before trial, they still take a long time to get to that point of agreement.
The average federal civil case takes 2 years and 7 months before trial. In state courts the average time before trial is two years, with the time extending even longer for complex cases.
One of the reasons for long delays is the complicated nature of many of the lawsuits and the fact that multiple parties and multiple claims are usually packaged into one case to be unraveled by a judge or a jury.
The more complex the case, the longer it usually takes during the “Discovery” period. Discovery is the multi-pronged process by which parties to a civil suit try to gain information from the other parties prior to trial.
Discovery takes many forms but often starts with requests by both the plaintiff and defendant for production of documents in the possession of the other party. These are usually key records and sometimes can be a few pages but can be up to warehouses full of documents.
Then the parties usually swap “Interrogatories.” Those are written questions to be answered by a party, in writing and under oath. There may be multiple sets of interrogatories.
Civil cases also permit “Depositions” of the parties to the lawsuit or any witness who may testify. A deposition is the oral taking a witness’s testimony under oath prior to the trial.
Depositions can be used in lieu of testimony at a trial or can also just be done for pure discovery purposes. In most civil cases, there are multiple depositions done by both sides.
Although discovery usually aides in bringing about settlement of cases, it prolongs the time that a case is pending in court.
Join retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson as they explore why civil cases take so long on this new edition of Next Witness…Please.
--------
59:53
--------
59:53
Cashless Bail Explained: How Trump’s Push to End It Collides with State Law
President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order trying to eliminate cashless bail in Washington D.C. and in other parts of the country with alleged high crime rates.
However, many states have had a cashless bail option that has worked well over decades. States set their own criteria for what judges may consider in ordering a bond and what kind of bail may be set by a court.
There are significant questions of whether Trump has the power to do so since bonds are determined by individual judges based on individual defendants and set criteria that must be considered.
The concept of bail and bond for people arrested for a criminal charge is often controversial and many people do not understand how judges decide what form of bond to use and the total costs of being released from custody prior to trial.
It is predominant in both federal and state jurisdictions that bond should not be a pretrial punishment because defendants, under the U.S. Constitution, are presumed innocent until they may be proven guilty in court.
Instead, bond is designed to protect the public and to assure the defendant’s presence at each stage of the judicial proceeding.
Both state and federal judges must consider certain guidelines in determining the kind and amount of bond to set.
Several of the considerations include the past record of the defendant, the defendant’s propensity for violence and whether the defendant is a flight risk.
Notably some defendants have been held in jail either without bond or with high bonds because it is feared that they would flee the jurisdiction of the court. Such is the case with music mogul Sean Diddy Combs on his sex trafficking and prostitution charges.
Defendants may also be held if the court fears that they might intimidate possible witnesses prior to trial.
In this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson examine considerations a judge must consider in setting a pretrial bond.
They also outline some of the various forms of bond from cash bond to cashless bail. They also discuss property bonds, bonding companies, and the concept of house arrest as a form of bond.
As President Donald Trump fends off critics of his administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking of minors’ case, new attention is swirling around Epstein’s co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted as a conspirator in 2022.
She has been interrogated for a day and a half by Trump’s former defense attorney and now Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
She has been subpoenaed to testify before the House Oversight Committee.
She has filed a sudden appeal of her conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, and she has been transferred to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Texas as she serves her 20-year sentence for sex trafficking of minors.
At the center of this Maxwell maelstrom are legal terms that many people do not understand such as “immunity,” “limited immunity,” “absolute immunity,” “clemency,” “pardon” and “commutation.”
What do these terms mean, in everyday language?
For example, Maxwell was given “limited immunity” to talk with Deputy Attorney General Blanche.
Her defense attorney has demanded that she receive “immunity” before she testifies before Congress. And Maxwell’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court concerns whether she was immune from prosecution by an earlier Epstein agreement with the federal authorities.
Meanwhile, her attorney has said that she would cooperate fully with the government if she received “clemency” from President Trump in the form of either a “pardon” or a “commutation” of her sentence.
Retired judges Gayle Williams Byers and Thomas Hodson break down these terms into understandable bites on this episode of their podcast Next Witness…Please.
They delve into legal strategies in play and talk about what might happen as this legal drama continues to unfold.
--------
1:02:50
--------
1:02:50
Trump’s Pick for the Federal Bench? Emil Bove’s Controversial Nomination Ignites Alarm
President Donald Trump has asked Senate leadership to forego the Senate’s traditional August recess and “long weekends” to push through a series of his appointments to key federal positions.
One such nomination that is hanging in the balance is the appointment of ultra controversial Trump loyalist Emil Bove to a seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. That court spawned conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
Bove’s nomination highlights the ongoing battle between Trump’s administration and the federal courts.
Bove currently is the Principal Associate Attorney General and is a longtime Trump attorney who represented Trump in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case and was part of Trump’s defense team when the president was convicted of a felony.
As part of the Department of Justice, Bove has been accused of ignoring federal court orders, providing misinformation to federal judges and telling federal attorneys that they should consider saying “F… You” to the courts.
He has been accused of personally ordering three plane loads of prisoners to be deposited at the CECOT prison in El Salvador after federal judge James Boasberg ordered the planes to turn around and return to America.
Bove has reportedly advocated for policies promoting racial profiling and undermining due process rights of immigrants.
Bove also was instrumental in the Justice Department’s move to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
He is a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York where his management style and temper were challenged by colleagues and opponents alike.
Bove has no judicial experience whatsoever but is rumored to be on a fast track for the next nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. He also is not an experienced litigator in federal appellate courts.
On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams Byers and Thomas Hodson unveil the judicial appointment process and dig deep into Bove’s controversial nomination.
--------
1:02:53
--------
1:02:53
Can a Fertilized Egg Overrule the Ohio Constitution?
“Next Witness…Please” examines the bill that could turn abortion into homicide—and voters into bystanders.
You might have thought that abortion rights were safe in Ohio after the Ohio Reproductive Freedom amendment to the Ohio Constitution was passed by 57 percent of the vote in 2023.
But think again.
In mid-June, House Bill 370, the Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act was introduced in the Ohio General Assembly. Its intent is to “entirely abolish abortion in this state.”
It does so by establishing that when a woman’s egg is fertilized that it then becomes a “pre-born person” entitled to all the federal constitutional protections provided a person once born.
The bill’s supporters say that Fourteenth Amendment protections of the U.S. Constitution would wipe out the Ohio Constitutional amendment legalizing abortion.
In short, an abortion would be considered a homicide by the mother, the doctor who performed the abortion, and anyone who advised the mother to be to get an abortion.
The proposed bill outlaws all abortion, even in the cases of rape or incest. There are only two exceptions: a spontaneous miscarriage and a life-saving emergency of the mother.
On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Thomas Hodson and Gayle-Williams Byers dive deeply into this bill and examine its potential ramifications – not only for Ohio but for the nation.
They also discuss the impact this bill, if passed, would have on democracy – given the recent overwhelming passage of the Reproductive Freedom Amendment in Ohio.
Additionally, they examine hypotheticals about how far ranging this proposed statute might be.
Ever found yourself lost in legal jargon? Fear not! Our mission is to decode complex legal concepts into everyday language, making them accessible to all.
Meet your hosts, the dynamic duo known as the Judicial Twins!
Retired judge Tom Hodson brings over 50 years of legal expertise as a trial judge, defense attorney, and former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States.
Retired judge Gayle William-Byers, with more than two decades of public service as a prosecutor and judge, is now sharing her knowledge as a Judicial Fellow for The National Judicial College and a legal analyst.
Join us as we embark on a quest to demystify the legal system and increase your understanding of its complexities.
Tune in to "Next Witness... Please" for enlightening discussions, insightful perspectives, and a deeper understanding of the law. Don't miss out – subscribe now and let's unravel the mysteries of the legal world together!
USA