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 Oklahoma, the concept of separate trials or bifurcation is recognized and can be applied in civil litigation. Bifurcation is a procedural tool that allows a court to divide a trial into two or more parts, enabling the judge or jury to consider separate issues independently. This is particularly useful in cases where certain evidence may prejudice the jury regarding issues that are distinct from one another. For instance, in cases involving punitive damages, Oklahoma courts may order a bifurcated trial to prevent financial evidence, such as a defendant's net worth or a company's revenue, from influencing the jury's determination of liability. The bifurcation process is governed by the Oklahoma statutes and the Oklahoma Rules of Civil Procedure, which grant judges the discretion to order separate trials in the interest of fairness and judicial efficiency. The decision to bifurcate a trial is typically made on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances and potential for prejudice in the presentation of evidence.