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.

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.

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.

“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.

After two trials and months of gripping testimony, a Massachusetts jury has acquitted Karen Read of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe.
In a case that drew national attention—fueled in part by a Netflix documentary—Read was found guilty only of driving under the influence. Her sentence: one year of probation.
Prosecutors argued that after a night of heavy drinking, Read struck O’Keefe with the rear of her SUV outside a friend’s home, then left him injured in a blizzard, where he died from exposure.
But Read’s defense told a very different story—one of police missteps, flawed forensics, and a possible coverup. They raised the specter O’Keefe was harmed inside the house and that fellow officers framed Read to protect one of their own.
Jurors told Boston media the prosecution simply failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
This was Read’s second trial. The first ended in a hung jury last summer.
On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson break down the legal complexities behind the verdict.
They explore why prosecutors retry cases after hung juries, who gains the advantage in a second trial, and how each side handled its courtroom strategy.
The judges also examine how the not-guilty verdicts may impact a pending civil wrongful death suit filed by O’Keefe’s family—and they explain the crucial differences between criminal and civil standards of proof.
Finally, Byers and Hodson consider whether Read might turn the tables by filing her own civil claims against police for a botched investigation—or even against prosecutors for malicious prosecution.

For decades, federal health regulation has been a cornerstone of America’s public well-being.
Agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have long been trusted to uphold safety standards, push the boundaries of science, conduct vital research, and operate with transparency.
But that trust is now under strain.
On this week’s episode of Next Witness…Please, guest Dr. Stephen A. Goldman issues a clear warning: a major shakeup at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) could put public health at serious risk.
Seventeen members of ACIP were abruptly removed by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., replaced with individuals reportedly aligned with his controversial views on vaccines.
Dr. Goldman, a psychiatrist, author, historian and veteran of the FDA, explores how these sweeping replacements could upend national vaccination policy, particularly amid resurgent diseases and falling immunization rates.
He also discusses a growing internal backlash within the scientific community. A group of NIH employees recently published The Bethesda Declaration: A Call for NIH and HHS Leadership to Deliver on Promises of Academic Freedom and Scientific Excellence, criticizing what they see as politicization and erosion of scientific integrity at the federal level.
The American Medical Association echoed those concerns in a forceful public statement, calling the ACIP overhaul “a blow to public trust.” It warned:
“With an ongoing measles outbreak and routine child vaccination rates declining, this move will further fuel the spread of vaccine-preventable illnesses.”
Dr. Goldman’s concerns don’t end there. He also critiques a recent announcement from the FDA, which, facing a 2,000-person staffing shortfall, plans to lean heavily on artificial intelligence to accelerate approvals of drugs and medical devices. While framed as an efficiency boost, he argues this strategy could compromise critical safety reviews and open the door to hasty, under-scrutinized decisions.

Music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs is on trial in federal court in New York, facing two sex trafficking charges, two counts of transporting individuals across state lines for sex work, and one count of racketeering conspiracy.
Testimony began May 12, with witnesses detailing wild, days-long sex parties dubbed “Freak Offs.” These allegedly took place in multiple states and involved Combs’ girlfriends, escorts, and others.
Sex trafficking charges hinge on whether force, fraud, or coercion was used to compel someone into commercial sex acts. At the heart of this trial: did Combs cross that legal line?
On the latest episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson break down exactly what prosecutors must prove — and how “force” and “coercion” play out in court.
They explain these legal terms with real-world clarity and offer vivid examples to make the law understandable.
The judges also dig into the racketeering charge under RICO — a complex law requiring proof of crimes like kidnapping, bribery, fraud, or extortion as part of a criminal enterprise.
They also analyze a recent defense motion for mistrial, claiming the prosecution knowingly allowed perjured testimony. Byers and Hodson explain how they'd rule — and why.
And in a tense courtroom moment, the judge warned Combs to stop making facial reactions during testimony — or risk being barred from his own trial.