Blog

A lawyer asks the judge to reconsider his ruling. The judge refuses and inform the attorney that if he does not like his ruling he can take it up on appeal. Can a judge say this? The Judge can Refuse to Reconsider The answer is yes; a judge can make a snap decision and stick to it such as this. For instance, your lawyer is questioning a witness, the defense objects to a particular question, the judge says, "objection sustained", and stops the witness from answering the question. Here the judge has made a snap decision about whether your lawyer can question the witness about a particular topic. If your lawyer does not like the judge's ruling, can he ask the judge to reconsider his ruling? Yes, you lawyer can ask the judge to reconsider. However, what is the likelihood of the judge reversing his decision, immediately after he has ruled that the lawyer cannot ask that question? The chances are extremely small. This is just human nature and it is unfortunate. When your lawyer raises the argument for the judge to reconsider, and starts to whine and complain, what is the judge most likely going to do? This can be compared to a child, who is clearly upset and complaining, and the adult ignoring the child. However, here the judge cannot ignore the attorney and has to provide guidance. The judge can tell the attorney that if he does not like his ruling, the attorney can take this up on appeal, if he loses the case. The Judge has to make Quick Decisions During the course of trial when an attorney objects, the judge has to make a snap decision about whether to allow a particular question to be answered, or whether to allow a particular piece of evidence to be presented to the jury. Now, if the lawyer has case point to support his position, he can present it to the judge. The lawyer can tell the judge that he has certain case(s) on point that supports his position about why he can ask the witness these particular questions. This will put the judge in a bit of a quandary. Should he take the time to actually read and analyze the cases that the lawyer is talking about, or should he simply stick to the ruling that he has already given and allow the case to move forward. Well, it can go either way, and it will mainly depend on the case and point raised by the lawyer. The Judge is More Likely to Reconsider if the Lawyer Presents Case Points If the lawyer is able to put forward important case points while asking the judge to reconsider, then there is more likelihood of the judge reconsidering his decision. The judge will at least listen to what the attorney has to say, and he might even take time to analyze the case points presented by the lawyer who wants to derive this information out of the witness, if the judge feels they are important to the case. However, the judge is also entitled to simply reject all case points, adhere to his original ruling, and inform the attorney to proceed.

Legal Obligation of Drivers Every driver is required to know what the rules of the road are. For instance, they need to know what a yield sign means and looks like, they are required to know that they should not drive in the bike lane, not change lanes without signaling, and so on. Drivers are required to see what is there to be seen. Now if you are careless or distracted because you are doing something else, not paying attention to the traffic and to where you are going, and you smash into a car in front of you, you have serious problems. Your situation only became more bleak if you have caused that driver significant injuries, then you will most likely be held legally responsible. Why is that? Because you may not have seen what was there to be seen, and there may not have been anything obstructing your vision. Did anything Prevent the Driver to See what is there to be Seen Suppose you have been injured in a car accident and you have filed an accident case to claim compensation; your lawyer will have the opportunity to question the distracted driver. Your lawyer will ask him whether anything in his view distracted or prevented him from seeing the car in front of him. Was there anything in his line of sight that did not allow him to see your car in front? All drivers have an obligation to see oncoming cars, and the cars that are coming from different directions. If the driver was careless or he was distracted, your lawyer can use that information to show that might have been a violation of the rules of the road, and because of that, there might be some evidence of negligence or carelessness. The jury will ultimately be able to evaluate and consider that information while determining whether the person that caused the accident did not see what is there to be seen. Holding Negligent Driver Accountable The statement, to see what is there to be seen, might be stating the obvious. But it is critical when you are considering negligence or carelessness in an accident case. When the driver was not seeing what was there to be seen, without his or her vision being obstructed or impaired in any way, then it indicates the driver was distracted due to some reason. There could be many reasons for such a distraction. The driver could be talking to someone on the phone and because he is intensely involved in the conversation, he may not see what is there to be seen in front. The driver might be texting or he could have turned his face to talk to a passenger in his car. No Excuse The main fact is that the distraction caused him to not see what is there to be seen, and that caused the accident. Drivers are obligated not to be distracted while they are driving, and the fact that they were distracted can make them legally responsible for the accident. Robert Wolff Robert H. Wolff is a member and partner of the prestigious New York City Personal Injury Law Firm of Rosenberg Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff, LLP. Mr. Wolff graduated from SUNY Albany, cum laude, in 1978 with a B.A. in Psychology and American History. Thereafter, he attended St. John’s University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Team and the Criminal Law Society, graduating in 1981 with a Juris Doctor’s degree.

Judge Controls all Trial Proceedings At a trial of a personal injury case, which can be an accident case, medical malpractice case, or even a wrongful death case, the judge will be in charge of supervising and controlling the courtroom. In every instance, the judge will instruct the jury not to discuss the case amongst themselves during any of the breaks. The judge will make it clear to the jurors that they are not to talk about the case during the breaks and when they leave for the day. Why does the judge give this instruction to the jury? Why Jurors cannot Discuss the Case during Breaks? The judge gives this particular instruction because the jury has not yet heard all the information regarding the case, they have not yet heard all the testimonies, they have not yet heard all the legal arguments, and most importantly the jury has not yet been informed about the legal instructions that the judge gives them at the very end of the trial. The judge does not want the jurors to start discussing the situation between themselves, what the different testimonies might mean. One juror might ask the other, what he thinks about a particular witness and his testimony. The jurors are likely to have many questions based upon their initial gut feelings, and the moment people start talking about their impressions, it will color their thinking. It is like when you come out after seeing a movie and you listen to people giving their opinions about the movie, and this may change what you originally thought about the movie when it ended. During the trial, the jury goes to the jury room for a break, and the jurors will sit and chat with each other. In such a scenario, they are most likely to talk about the case. Therefore, specifically judge will instruct jury not to discuss the case amongst themselves during these breaks. The judge does not want the jury to go ahead and get initial impressions from different jurors, as each one chimes in their opinions about a particular witness or about a particular cross-examination question and so on. The judge does not want the jurors to talk about the case because they have not heard everything yet. This does seem sort of illogical but it is the rules. What if a jury member wants to confirm someone’s name or a fact about the testimony? You have to take exceptional notes so you do not have these questions. Yes, this does seem like backward logic but it is the rules. The judge will instruct jurors to hold their thoughts until the very end of the case. Once they have heard the entire case, all the testimonies, and all the legal instructions pertaining to the case, then they can go to the jury room and begin deliberating. This is the time when they can start exchanging ideas about who is right and who is wrong, and whether the victim has been able to show them that he is more likely right than wrong. Therefore, in all civil matters in New York, the judge will instruct jury not to discuss the case amongst themselves until the end of trial. Then it is time for them to deliberate over the case.

During the course of a personal injury trial, which can be medical malpractice case, accident case, or even a wrongful death case, what happens if a juror wants to use the bathroom? If the juror needs to go to the bathroom in the middle of the trial proceedings, can he raise his hand and ask permission from the judge. A Bathroom Break is Allowed during the Trial The answer is yes; a juror or jurors can raise their hands and request a bathroom break from the judge. The judge will honor such a request, stop the trial, allow everybody to take a break, and get back after some time to resume the trial. Nobody talks about this because it is not on anyone's mind, until a person would want to use the bathroom when the trial is marching forward. Can such a person simply get up quietly and walk out of the courtroom? The answer is yes, if the person is sitting in the back of the courtroom. In the back of the courtroom, you do not have to ask permission, since it is a public courtroom and a person can leave when he needs to, without disturbing the court proceedings. What if it is an attorney, who needs to use the bathroom? What happens when the lawyer is questioning a witness, and he needs to take a bathroom break? The attorney can ask the judge for a break, and depending on how the case is progressing or how much distress the attorney is obviously in, the judge might agree to provide few minutes bathroom break. Does the Judge need to Stop Trial Proceedings? Hence, anyone in the back of the courtroom can simply walk out without asking the judge's permission, while the trial proceedings are in full swing. Jurors on the other hand, have to ask specifically for permission, since the judge will have to stop the proceedings and authorize a bathroom break. None of the normal trial proceedings can go on in the absence of a juror or jurors. Each juror is supposed to listen and evaluate the case individually, and therefore cannot miss anything that happens during the trial. Therefore the judge, will obviously have to stop proceedings and resume the trial after the bathroom break. Can an Attorney Request a Bathroom Break? The same holds true for lawyers as well, even when it is the lawyer not questioning the witness, who needs the bathroom break. The judge will have to stop proceedings and resume trial when the lawyer ready to proceed. However, a judge will consider many things before allowing a bathroom break for an attorney, since this strategy could be employed to create a break purposefully. For instance, the defense witness is on the stand and he is floundering under the cross-examination of the plaintiff's lawyer. The defense lawyer might ask for a bathroom break to create an opportunity for the witness to get his thoughts organized, and be more ready when the questioning resumes. Based on this deviousness, if the judge feels something like untoward is going on, he might order the bathroom break after the questioning is over and not immediately.

You have thought of filing a personal injury case to seek compensation for the losses and harms you have suffered. However, the legal process can take time, and there will be instances when you feel that nothing is going on in your personal injury case. There can be certain reasons for this, and they are terrific to know since it can save you some stress. First Reason for Your Case's Tediousness After you have consulted an attorney about filing your personal injury case, the attorney will then have to go ahead and investigate your particular case. He will start the process of obtaining all of your medical records. This can take some time and it could take months especially if one of your hospitals or doctors is recalcitrant. Next, your lawyer will have to read all the medical records and then send them to a medical expert for review and analysis. This can also a couple of months. Hence, one of the reasons you may believe nothing is going on in your personal injury case is because nobody might be communicating with you in terms of letting you know all the things that are going on behind the scenes. Second Reason Why You may Feel Your Case is Stuck in the Mud After your lawsuit has started, and all the parties you have used have responded to your allegations, you now have to ask the court for a scheduling conference. This is where both sides will agree on a deposition date and so on. There could be a significant gap in time, again spanning many months before you are actually notified for your deposition. This is the second reason why you might believe nothing is going on in your personal injury case. A Stack of Cases After all discoveries are complete and you tell the court that your case is ready for trial, your case will be included in the bottom of the pile of a large stack of cases. Slowly, your case will climb to the top of the pile, and you will be called for a pretrial conference. However, during this period, you could feel that your case has been neglect or is being ignored since there could be so much quiet time at this stage. It could many months before your case is called up for trial once you have notified the court of your case being ready for it. Even though it may seem there is nothing going on in your case, the reality is that there is a lot going on. Your case is waiting to come up for a pretrial conference, and your attorney will be preparing you case for trial. Your lawyer will be contacting your witnesses and talking to them about what they should be expecting and what questions they will probably be asked. Your attorney will be mobilizing all the ammunition and his entire arsenal for the trial. They want to win this case as much as you do. These are the main reasons why you could believe your personal injury case has been tossed into the garbage. The waiting can be frustrating, but there is nothing you can do. You should know that time is not being wasted and your attorney is making things happen behind the scenes.

Did you know that during a pretrial conference, if one of the sides is not ready or prepared to discuss a settlement, the judge can actually dismiss the case? Why is that? What is Expected at a Pretrial Conference? A personal injury case is nearing the trial date and scheduled for pretrial conference. The judge will try to have both parties reach a settlement. He turns to the plaintiff's lawyer who represents the injured victim and asks what he needs to settle the case. The lawyer will quote a settlement amount, and then the judge will ask the defense what they are prepared to offer in this case. If the defense lawyer says that this is the first time he is hearing about any settlement demands from the plaintiff, and he is not prepared to have any settlement discussions whatsoever – this could infuriate the judge. In fact, the judge could even dismiss the case. When the attorneys arrive in court for the purposes of a pretrial conference, the entire purpose is to try to invoke settlement negotiations. The judge will see if the defense has evaluated the case, whether they have a position and whether they are willing to talk or not. Only then will the judge make an intelligent decision about whether to adjourn the matter to facilitate further discussions or to set the case down for trial. If the defense attorney does not have any information and has not reviewed the case in terms of holding settlement discussions, then he is obstructing the judge and wasting the court's time. The judge will reprimand the defense lawyer and tell him he was supposed to come prepared and have an idea about settling the case. The Judge has the Authority to Dismiss the Case Apart from this, one of the other things available to the judge is that he can literally dismiss the defense's answer, or he can dismiss their claim. This would mean the plaintiff would have won by default. However, does this actually happen? Well, it is very rare, but it has happened, and it is within the judge's discretion to dismiss the case if the defense is not prepared or does not want to negotiate. What happens if the plaintiff's side is not prepared or willing to negotiate? The judge will be equally angry, and one of the options available to him would be to dismiss the victim's claim and his case. This would mean the defense has won, and the victim will not have a chance to obtain any compensation for their claims. The victim will then have to go through the appeals process, which is time consuming and complicated. They would also be quite upset with their attorney as well and could possibly be grounds for a legal malpractice suit depending on what happens. This almost never happens though. But it has before. Not Prepared All these legal issues arise all because one side or the other was not prepared to go ahead with the settlement discussions, when the whole purpose of the pretrial conference was to see if the case can be settled through negotiations. Avoiding a trial is worth pursuing.

You have some Skeletons in Your Closet There is something in your past that does not look good, and that something you know is going to come out during the course of your personal injury case. What can your attorney do, to minimize the effect of what happened to you in the past is not going to destroy your case or your credibility. Something bad happened to you in the past, and you know that if the jury finds out, it could destroy your credibility. Secondly, the defense knows about this and he is going to do everything possible to tell the jury about it. Hence, what is the one important thing your attorney can do to take away the defense's thunder and lightning that you know can strike at any time? The most Acute & Favorable Strategy The answer is simple. Your attorney will have to tell the jury first. In fact, if your attorney were experienced he would tell the jury about your past, during the jury selection itself. He will start the conversation with the potential jurors by saying that something about his client's past needs to be discussed. Alternatively, your lawyer could tell the jury about your past, during the opening remarks. He might even warn the jurors that what he is going to reveal about his client is nothing to smile about, but the risk is even greater if you try to hide this information. The strategy is that your lawyer should be the first one to tell the jury, without bothering about how bad or horrible your past looks. When your lawyer is the first one to reveal your closet skeletons, it will steal the defense's thunder. Your lawyer will be taking away the surprise element; otherwise, the defense lawyer can be dramatic and create a terrible impression about you with the jury. Your attorney will want to see if a jury member has the capacity to put that information behind them and only focus on what is the issue at hand. You do not want jury members on your jury that do not know how to separate the two. For instance, the defense lawyer might get up after your attorney has made his opening remarks, and tell the jury there is something about the plaintiff that his lawyer has not revealed to the jury. This will get the full attention of the jurors. And when this attorney begins to speak about something you did in the past that is unbecoming of a decent human being, you may have lost all credibility with these jury members. The chances of you obtaining a fair verdict would have subsided almost completely. This is why you want to come clean right in the beginning. Building Credibility Everything an attorney strives for during a trial is to build up the credibility of his client. It is to show that all the facts are supported by the evidence presented in the case. If your lawyer hides something that you did in the past and does not bring this information up in the beginning and when he has the opportunity to do so, the risk to your case is magnified. The defense attorney is going to take advantage of this information and he will show the jury that you are trying to hide something from them. Even though this information has nothing to do with the current claims you are making in this case, it will still matter to the jury because of the fact you were trying to hide information that could define your character or at least your character in the past. Therefore, a stellar attorney will always try to reveal anything damaging about your past before the defense is able to do so. Gary Silverstein Gary Silverstein has been a partner of Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff since 2001, and an associate of the firm since 1989. Mr. Silverstein graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from State University of New York College at Oneonta in 1983. Mr. Silverstein holds a degree of Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law, having graduated in 1988.

In an urban community like New York City, injury lawyers must consider the real risks people face on a daily basis. Many of these are related to the busy, congested streets that residents have to navigate in all five boroughs and around the general metro area. In a sense, evaluating public health and safety involves a very concrete kind of analysis of spatial areas. The city streets are so important because they're used for so many things. Motor vehicles have to contend with bicycles and pedestrians. Service providers have to navigate areas to reach customers. Individual residents have to commute to and from work, run errands and otherwise travel through the same infrastructure. Negligence In Using Curb Areas One way to look at the city street is to separate out the vehicle transport area from the ‘living area,’ or, in other words, the sidewalk area that pedestrians share with vendors, bus stops and other installations along a city block. In really looking closely at how these areas are used, you can see that the use of curb and sidewalk areas can be as important as the use of the actual street. Traffic collisions and conventional car accidents happen mostly in the actual lanes of travel, but many other types of pedestrian accidents and injuries happen away from the street in public areas. A Cluttered Landscape When individuals or businesses leave items unattended on a sidewalk, they are further complicating an already complex picture. One example is piles of garbage piled up on a curb area. These obstacles can limit sight distance for motor vehicles, present slip and fall dangers for pedestrians or otherwise endanger those who use the area regularly. The same goes for loose construction materials, discarded or abandoned home goods or anything else that will pose an obstacle on a walkway. That’s not to mention the severe and sometimes tragic consequences facing those who throw an item out of a window onto the ground below, which is a flagrantly neglectful and reckless act that will lead to major liability. When New York City personal injury lawyers are called on to represent their clients’ interests in court, they will look at all of these types of problems to determine if any negligence or inattention to public safety contributed to an accident. Parties responsible for leaving garbage, junk or unattended items on or near a street will often have some liability and responsibility to compensate injury victims. Let New York City Injury Attorneys Help You New York City residents who are injured in an accident in a public space can call the lawyers at Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff. We understand how to bring personal injury cases through local courts and we have experience helping New York City families to manage their affairs by pursuing money for care and recovery for a family member. Let us help you move a personal injury case forward in New York. Gary Silverstein Gary Silverstein has been a partner of Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff since 2001, and an associate of the firm since 1989. Mr. Silverstein graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from State University of New York College at Oneonta in 1983. Mr. Silverstein holds a degree of Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law, having graduated in 1988.

Suppose you have filed a medical malpractice case, an accident case, or even a wrongful death case, and you have chosen voluntarily to settle this case before it goes to verdict. If you agree on an amount of money to settle the case for, the defense will ask for a stipulation of discontinuance. What is that? What is a Stipulation of Discontinuance and Why is it Required? It is simply a piece of paper that mainly says that I (name of the plaintiff) agree to discontinue this lawsuit. Why is stipulation of discontinuance required? It is required to finalize a particular lawsuit. Suppose you have filed a personal injury case, and after negotiations, you agree to a settlement amount, you will have to sign stipulation of discontinuance and send it over to the defense attorney who will sign it as well. Then the defense attorney will take this document and file it with the court. This way the court will have actual proof that the plaintiff has discontinued the case, and the case is over. All the necessary people involved in the case have signed off on it, telling the court that the case is now officially over and the court can now close the case and move on with other business, i.e. other cases. The Court needs Proof of the Case being Closed If the court does not have the stipulation of discontinuance, or if only one or two people involved in the lawsuit actually participated in signing it, the court would still keep the case open. The court will keep the case open, schedule conferences, and will want to know what is happening with the case. However, when everyone participates and signs off on this discontinuance document that says the case is over, then only the court will close that case file, and nobody can reopen that case after that. Make Sure You are Satisfied with the Settlement Offer before Signing Anything Therefore, if you have filed a personal injury case and negotiations are going on, you should only sign the stipulation of discontinuance, when you are fully satisfied with the settlement offer. Once you have signed this document and it is filed with the court, you cannot reopen this case for whatever reason. In fact, your signature on this document indicates that you have accepted a settlement offer voluntarily and therefore you do not wish to take the case further through trial. You have officially declared your case to be over, and that you are not going to pursue it any further. Additionally, the court will also have a document showing the case was closed. The court cannot discontinue a case without proper documentation, without all parties of the case agreeing that the case is over. The stipulation of discontinuance is signed by the plaintiff stating the case is now over, and the defense also signs it before filing it with the court.

In personal injury cases, whether it is a medical malpractice case, accident case, or even a wrongful death case, one of the attorneys might request the judge that they would like to have a sidebar. This usually happens when one of the attorneys is objecting to something. One of the attorneys will then ask the judge whether he can have a sidebar. What is a Request for a Sidebar? Sidebar means the attorneys want to speak to the judge in private. In such instances, the judge can do a number of things. He can tell the jury that he is now going to speak to the attorneys in private, and he might instruct the jury to go into the jury room and wait there until his discussion with the attorneys is over. The judge also has another alternative, where he can have the attorneys approach the bench or to the side, and speak to them quietly, so that the jury cannot hear whatever is spoken. The judge can also take the attorneys into their office to work things out as well. Anytime there is an objection from the lawyers, the judge will have to make an immediate decision about whether to allow the question or to allow the evidence to come in. However, making the decision, the judge might want to hear legal arguments from the attorneys at their request. Since the discussion involves legal arguments, the judge might not want the jury to listen to the conversation that is taking place. The Judge is the Ruler of the Law The judge is responsible for making legal decisions and legal rulings in the conducting of the case. The jury does not play any part in this. The function of the jury in a personal injury case, is to determine, who is more likely right than wrong. The jurors are finders of facts, and the judge on the other hand is the ruler of law in a courtroom. Hence, when one of the attorneys requests a sidebar, the judge will usually say yes. The attorneys will then approach the bench and speak to the judge quietly, so that the jury does not hear the conversation. This conversation is also no longer on record. The court reporter present in the courtroom will not be taking down all the things that are being said between the judge and the two attorneys. Contrast this to the questions and answers that are going on in the courtroom before the request for sidebar, where everything was being taken down by the court reporter. If there is not a court reporter – someone may just temporarily turn off the recording device. Both Lawyers are Involved Therefore, sidebar is a private conversation between the judge and both the attorneys. The request for a sidebar will be made by one of the attorneys, but both attorneys will approach the bench. The other attorney is also included in the discussion, as he also will want to hear what is going on and he might want to make legal arguments against what the other attorney is telling the judge. The judge will listen to both attorneys, and will reach a decision before calling off the sidebar so they can proceed with the trial.

Raising the Objection In a personal injury lawsuit such as a medical malpractice case, an accident case, or even a wrongful death case the defense attorney can jump up during the trial, yell out an objection, and provide the reason that question assumes facts not in evidence. The defense lawyer does not like the way the question was asked of a particular witness by the plaintiff's lawyer. By raising this objection, the defense is trying to say that the question is hypothetical and it assumes certain facts to be true. The witness is being asked to agree or disagree with a statement that is based on certain facts. The defense does not like the facts that are being raised by the plaintiff's attorney because they are not in evidence. The other Attorney will be Given a Chance to Explain In instances where the defense raises such an objection, the judge will usually give the plaintiff's lawyer the opportunity to explain why he believes those facts are in evidence, or they may be coming into evidence through another witness's testimony, or those facts might have come in through pre-trial testimony that will be entered into evidence later on. In many instances, the judge will allow the witness to answer the question based upon the hypothetical question asked by the attorney. Additionally, in all likelihood the judge will also give the jury certain instructions. For instance, the judge will say, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard a hypothetical question, which means the attorney is asking the witness to assume certain facts to be true. If you find that those facts are true, then you are permitted to give that witness's testimony whatever weight you believe it deserves. However, if you find those facts to be untrue, then obviously you are permitted to disregard that witness's testimony". A Valid Objection The objection of question assumes facts not in evidence is a valid one, and can be raised by either attorney, when he is asking hypothetical questions to a witness based upon certain facts that have not yet been presented as evidence in the trial. There could be different reasons for these facts not to be in evidence, and judge will give the attorney the opportunity to explain the reason in order to counter the objection. If the lawyer says that such facts will be presented as evidence later during the course of the trial, then the judge might allow such a line of questioning. However, the judge will still instruct the jury about the matter, and tell them to disregard the witness's testimony in case these facts are not presented into evidence later. The judge might also sustain the objection of question assumes facts into evidence, if he feels that such facts are not going to be presented, or such facts are going to be disallowed to be presented as evidence later during the trial. Therefore, this objection might be sustained or overruled, and it will mainly depend on the explanation given by the attorney.

What happens when your witness does not show up when he is called to the stand? You might feel that such a situation is rare or unheard but it happens more often than you think, especially in personal injury cases. There can be many reasons for the witness not showing up. For instance, you could have subpoenaed a witness, and the witness might have ignored the subpoena. Maybe the witness has voluntarily agreed to come in and testify, but now he is stuck in traffic. There could be many different reasons for a witness not showing up, despite the fact that he is scheduled to arrive on that date and time. Judge will Question the Attorney Therefore, what happens next when your witness does not show up to testify? The judge will ask your lawyer many questions to try to find out why the witness has not turned up. For instance, the judge might ask: Did you subpoena the witness? Did you talk to the witness today? Did the witness promise to be present? What time was the witness given to come to court? Such a situation does not look good. There could be a packed courtroom, the jury is waiting to start, the judge is on the bench, asking your lawyer to call the next witness and your witness has failed to appear in court. The judge now has to figure out how to solve this problem without wasting any further time of the court. The judge might want to move the case forward and would want the jury to listen to other testimonies. The judge will most likely ask your lawyer whether he has any more witnesses lined up for that day. Your case could be in jeopardy at this point – not a pleasant feeling to have. The Judge is in Charge of Planning and Scheduling Witness Appearances for the Trial At the beginning of the trial, the judge will most likely ask the two attorneys several questions about witnesses such as, how many witnesses do you have, and who is going to come and testify on each given date. Why does the judge need to know this information? The judge must know this information because he has to plan and schedule things in the trial accordingly. More importantly, the judge would want to tell the jury which witnesses are coming on each given day of the trial. What is going?! Hence, the day before the judge would have told the jury about the list of witnesses that are going to take the stand tomorrow. However, what happens if a witness from this list does not show up? In all likelihood, the judge will extend some courtesy to your lawyer and provide some extra time for him to find the witness. The judge might ask your lawyer to contact the witness on the phone and find out if he is stuck in traffic, if he is not feeling well, or he has forgotten about the date to appear in court. What happens if an hour goes by and still the witness does not show up in court? Your lawyer and the judge now have a problem on their hands, and the judge will have to fashion some solution. Hopefully, your lawyer has other witnesses lined up and if not the judge might postpone the trial for a day. However, it is always wise to make sure all your witnesses show up at the appointed time. If you have to arrange transportation or pick them up then perhaps that is what you should do. Robert Wolff Robert H. Wolff is a member and partner of the prestigious New York City Personal Injury Law Firm of Rosenberg Minc, Falkoff, & Wolff, LLP. Mr. Wolff graduated from SUNY Albany, cum laude, in 1978 with a B.A. in Psychology and American History. Thereafter, he attended St. John’s University School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Team and the Criminal Law Society, graduating in 1981 with a Juris Doctor’s degree.