What happens to testimony that aims to prove a first witness incorrect on a minor point according to the waste of time doctrine?

The waste of time doctrine, which is a principle applied in legal proceedings, serves to streamline trials by ensuring that testimony or evidence that does not add significant value to the case—or only serves to contradict a witness on minor points—is not unnecessarily introduced. In this context, if testimony is aimed solely at disproving a first witness on a minor point, it may be considered extraneous or unimportant.

When testimony falls under the waste of time doctrine, the judge has the discretion to dismiss it. This is based on the premise that such testimony may not contribute meaningfully to the resolution of the case and could unnecessarily prolong proceedings without providing substantive evidence relevant to the case. The judge's role includes safeguarding the efficiency of the trial process, and if evidence is deemed to waste time, it may indeed be excluded.

The other options suggest different interpretations of how testimony is handled in such scenarios, but they do not align with the principles governing the waste of time doctrine. The doctrine emphasizes expediting trial proceedings and focuses on maintaining relevance, thus supporting the correct interpretation that the judge may dismiss such testimony.