Chapter 6 - § 6.12 • TIME|WITNESS LIMITATIONS

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 6.12 • TIME/WITNESS LIMITATIONS

Colorado

➢ General. Interest in efficiency may not be given precedence over due process, In re Marriage of Goellner, 770 P.2d 1387, 1389 (Colo. App. 1989), which includes the opportunity to be heard, In re Marriage of Salby, 126 P.3d 291, 302 (Colo. App. 2005), and the right to cross-examine and present evidence. In re Marriage of Woolley, 25 P.3d 1284 (Colo. App. 2001).

➢ Use of Clock Trial. The use of a "clock trial" has been approved in Colorado. Maloney v. Brassfield, 251 P.3d 1097 (Colo. App. 2010).

➢ Standard of Review. Although a trial court's decision to impose express time limits is reviewed for abuse of discretion, the court of appeals has applied a heightened level of scrutiny in determining whether the time limits imposed constitute an abuse of discretion at two levels: at the outset of the proceeding and as developments occurred during the trial. Id. at 1102.

➢ Factors to Consider at Outset of Trial. In determining whether a set time period for trial, allocating equal time to both sides, was inadequate at the outset, consideration may include the trial court's familiarity with how the particular facts of the case could impact time requirements and the experience and skill of the litigators for both sides. Id. at 1102-03.
➢ Factors to Consider in Assessing Issue of Inadequacy During Trial. A number of factors have been identified as being worthy of consideration in determining whether preset time limits became inadequate during the trial. Id. at 1103. The court of appeals rejected the contention that the party bearing the burden of proof should have a greater allocation of time. Id. Absent developments during a trial that were not anticipated, once a trial court imposes time limits, it should not change them during the proceeding. Id.

➢ Time Limitations. A party was denied the right to a full and fair hearing and due process, when the trial court's inflexibility limited the time to present evidence, giving each side six hours total for its case, including cross-examination. Goellner, 770 P.2d 1387. Time constraints were not deemed unreasonable, however, when (1) a trial court imposed and rigidly adhered to a clock trial that evenly divided seven days of trial time in a personal-injury case, where the defendant admitted negligence but disputed causation and damages, Maloney, 251 P.3d at 1102-03, 1106, or (2) the

...