When you go to the final hearing, be on time. This won't guarantee that the judge will be prompt. The case before yours may run late. I have also shown up in many a courthouse only to find that the judge is treating him / herself to a luxuriously long lunch. However, if the judge does happen to start on time, and you are not there, you could miss important testimony, not to mention get yelled at in the bargain. Of course, that's never happened to me.
The first person to present his / her case at the final hearing is the "petitioner", or person who asked for the divorce. His / her attorney calls witnesses, and asks them the questions he / she thinks they can best answer. Documents are also introduced into evidence, either by stipulation, or through the testimony of the people who prepared them. If the attorney believes that the questions asked by the other side are improper, or that a certain document should not be considered by the judge, he / she can object. If the judge agrees with the attorney, he / she will be "sustained". If the judge thinks the objection has no "merit" or is wrong, he / she will "overrule" it, and let the testimony or document be "admitted into evidence" which means it is something the judge will consider in making his / her decision.
As the petitioner finishes questioning each of his / her witnesses, the respondent has an opportunity to "cross examine" them. This means that he / she can ask any questions he / she has about what they said, or what documents they presented. The questions the respondent can ask are limited to the subjects covered by the petitioner in his / her questions. If the respondent wants the witness to testify about something the petitioner didn't cover, he / she must wait for his / her own case, and call the witness to testify for him / her.
When the petitioner rests, it is the respondent's turn to produce witnesses and documents to support his / her side of the case. The petitioner then has a chance to cross-examine the respondent's witnesses. When the respondent is done, the petitioner can present "rebuttal" evidence, which gives him / her the chance to address anything he / she overlooked in his case. He / she can only cover new things that the respondent brought out. He / she can't add new things to his / her original case.
If the Petitioner introduces new things about the respondent's case and the respondent feels he / she needs to correct the judge's impression, then he / she can have "surrebuttal" and explain his / her side of the matter. Finally, the judge says a few words, sometimes under his / her breath, and unprintable, and the proceeding goes to the next stage.
A final argument is where the parties tell the judge what they think the evidence showed. The petitioner again goes first. The respondent says his / herpiece, and the petitioner can rebut anything the respondent says with which he / she disagrees. Again, if the petitioner covers something that the respondent thinks is wrong, he / she can set the court straight.
Sometimes, the attorneys waive final argument. At times, this is because the hearing took so long that the lawyers are simply out of gas. Other times, the glazed look in the judge's eyes is a cue that further speechifying wouldn't be welcome. Sometimes, the judge would prefer that they write out there opinions and site the cases that they think backs them up. Finally, the parties wait for the judge to make a ruling. In busy courts, this part can take months.
------
Lucille Uttermohlen has been a family law attorney for 27 years. Her specialties include divorce, paternity, guardianship, adoption, probate and criminal law. For free information about your family's legal matters, visit Lucille at
http://www.couple-or-not.com
