In addition, some of the changes in

In addition, some of the changes in pre-trial procedure discussed earlier that increase the judge's control in litigation have the effect of reducing the time it takes to try a jury trial. More vigorous pre-trial judicial supervision has the effect of forcing the parties to agree on more facts, thus leaving less for the jury to decide. In addition, the device of submitting the case to the jury on a special verdict, as discussed earlier in this chapter, can improve efficiency. Such verdicts, instead of just "dumping" the entire case on the jury with no direction other than instructions, can spell out the issues for them by way of specific questions and thus streamline their decision making process. Moreover, the trial judge has always had the power to limit unnecessary proof and to exclude even relevant evidence to prevent "undue delay, waste of time, and needless presentation of cumulative evidence."'

結果 (繁體中文) 2:

此外，前面討論的關於增加法官對訴訟控制的預審程式的一些變化，具有減少審判陪審團審判所需的時間的效果。更有力的審前司法監督，迫使當事人就更多的事實達成一致，因此陪審團決定的較少。此外，如本章前面所述，將案件提交陪審團對特別判決的裝置可以提高效率。這種裁決，而不是僅僅"傾銷"整個案件陪審團，除了指示之外，沒有任何其他方向，可以通過具體問題來闡明問題，從而簡化他們的決策過程。此外，主審法官始終有許可權制不必要的證據，甚至排除相關證據，以防止"不當拖延、浪費時間和不必要地提出累積證據"。

結果 (繁體中文) 3:

此外，前面討論的預審程式的一些變化，新增了法官在訴訟中的控制權，具有縮短陪審團審判所需時間的效果。更為有力的審前司法監督具有迫使當事人就更多事實達成一致，從而减少陪審團裁决的效果。此外，如本章前面所述，將案件提交陪審團作出特別裁决的方法可以提高效率。這樣的判决，不只是將整個案件“傾銷”給陪審團，除了訓示之外沒有其他訓示，而是可以通過具體問題為陪審團說明問題，從而簡化他們的決策過程。此外，初審法官始終有權限制不必要的證據，甚至排除相關證據，以防止“不適當的拖延、浪費時間和不必要地提出累積證據”