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 Mississippi, the concept of separate trials or bifurcation is recognized and can be applied at the discretion of the court. Bifurcation is a procedural tool that allows a judge to divide a trial into two or more parts to address different issues separately. This is particularly useful in complex cases where certain evidence might prejudice the jury or is only relevant to a specific part of the case. For instance, in cases where punitive damages are sought, Mississippi courts may order a bifurcated trial to ensure that the jury first determines liability based solely on the evidence related to the alleged wrongdoing. Only if liability is established would the jury then consider evidence pertaining to the defendant's financial status to determine the appropriate amount of punitive damages. This approach helps to ensure a fair trial by preventing irrelevant or potentially prejudicial information from influencing the jury's decision on the fundamental question of liability.