Why do lawyers approach the bench

However, if the discussion is going to take a long time then the jury may be excused by the judge. The CEB , a program of the University of California that is cosponsored by the State Bar of California, lists the following situations as examples of when bench conferences are appropriate:.

Purposes of bench conferences can also include explaining the order of witnesses, a technical problem or the need to take a recess to go to the restroom. These private discussions between the judge and attorneys are commonly referred to as side bar discussions.

A personal injury case is an unfamiliar experience for most people, which is why they turn to an attorney to guide them through The CEB , a program of the University of California that is cosponsored by the State Bar of California, lists the following situations as examples of when bench conferences are appropriate: The proponent asks a question, the opponent objects, and the proponent needs to explain factually why the evidence is admissible.

Categories FAQ. Related Posts. First Name Please enter your first name. Last Name Please enter your last name. Phone Please enter your phone number. This isn't a valid phone number. There's an important reason why I am asking the expert this question. Now the judge has to decide whether or not to permit the attorneys to approach and to have a side conversation that the jury cannot hear. I have been involved in trials where a defense attorney made repeated requests to have sidebar conversations.

It can get very annoying if this is abused. The judge will not appreciate it. The jury will certainly not appreciate because it disrupts the flow of testimony.

In some instances, an attorney will use this strategy intentionally to disrupt his adversary's flow. What's important to understand is that the jury plays no part in evaluating or deciding legal issues in the case.

The jury determines who is telling the truth. The jury is the one to determine what the real facts are. When it comes to making rulings of law and deciding whether certain testimony is admissible or whether evidence is admissible, the judge is the sole arbiter of those decisions. When legal issues arise about a certain piece of evidence that the judge needs to address, he will often do it in one of two ways.

Either he will do it in front of the jury and ask the attorneys for legal argument, but more often than not, he'll either excuse the jury temporarily until the legal arguments are completed or he will have a sidebar conversation with the attorneys.

One of the key advantages is that you have a brief discussion with the judge explaining why you believe your position is correct and the others side's position is wrong.

This conversation can last seconds or even a few minutes.