Separate trials or bifurcation of a trial keeps a lawsuit intact, but allows the judge or jury to hear and determine one or more issues without trying all of the issues at the same time. This is often done to avoid unnecessarily prejudicing or inflaming the jury with evidence related to one issue that is not related to another issue. For example, courts sometimes order separate trials or bifurcation of a trial when a party is seeking punitive or exemplary damages, and the court does not want evidence of the person’s net worth or the entity’s valuation or revenue—which are relevant to punitive damages—to influence the jury’s decision on whether the person or entity is liable for the breach of contract, negligence, or other claim. In such a bifurcated trial, the jury does not hear evidence of the net worth, valuation, or revenue unless it first finds the defendant liable on the underlying claim.

In Maryland, the concept of separate trials or bifurcation is recognized and can be applied at the discretion of the court. Bifurcation is the process by which a trial is divided into two or more parts, allowing the judge or jury to consider certain issues separately from others. This procedural tool is often used to prevent prejudice that might arise from a jury hearing evidence on issues that are not related to the determination of liability. For instance, in cases where punitive damages are sought, Maryland courts may order a bifurcated trial to ensure that evidence of a defendant's wealth does not influence the jury's decision on liability. The Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure provide judges with the authority to order bifurcation for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize the proceedings. The decision to bifurcate a trial is typically made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances and complexities of the case at hand.