It may be the case that there are some trials that might appropriately be split, even where the result would be to have two different juries trying separate issues in the case. This is not such a case, for the reasons already expressed by Sutherland J. It is not advisable to develop “new law” in a factual vacuum. If the current state of the law as stated in Duffy v. Gillespie needs to evolve to meet the realities of modern trial length and complexities, it should only be in the context of a factual situation which illustrates the need for such a change. I do not see that need in this case.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.