0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
775 просмотров6 страниц
This document provides definitions and examples of common objections made during trials in American law. It lists several types of objections including: ambiguous questions, argumentative questions, asked and answered objections, objections that assume facts not in evidence, hearsay objections, irrelevant questions, leading questions, questions that misstate evidence, narrative questions, speculative questions, and others. It also provides guidance on properly making objections, including standing up and stating the legal basis for the objection concisely to avoid prejudicing the jury.
This document provides definitions and examples of common objections made during trials in American law. It lists several types of objections including: ambiguous questions, argumentative questions, asked and answered objections, objections that assume facts not in evidence, hearsay objections, irrelevant questions, leading questions, questions that misstate evidence, narrative questions, speculative questions, and others. It also provides guidance on properly making objections, including standing up and stating the legal basis for the objection concisely to avoid prejudicing the jury.
This document provides definitions and examples of common objections made during trials in American law. It lists several types of objections including: ambiguous questions, argumentative questions, asked and answered objections, objections that assume facts not in evidence, hearsay objections, irrelevant questions, leading questions, questions that misstate evidence, narrative questions, speculative questions, and others. It also provides guidance on properly making objections, including standing up and stating the legal basis for the objection concisely to avoid prejudicing the jury.
"Objection, your Honor, the question is ambiguous."
A question is ambiguous if: It may be misunderstood by the witness. It is objectionable on the ground that it may take on more than one meaning. "Objection, your Honor, the question is argumentative." A question is argumentative if: It is asked for the urose of ersuading the jury or the judge, rather than to elicit information. It calls for an argument in answer to an argument contained in the question. It calls for no new facts, but merely asks the witness to concede to inferences drawn by the e!aminer from roved or assumed facts. "Objection, your Honor, the question has been asked and answered." A question may be objetionab!e on t"e groun# t"at "he witness has already answered a substantially similar question asked by the same attorney on the same subject matter. "Objections, your Honor, the question assumes facts not in evidence." A question assumes fats not in evi#ene if: It resumes unroved facts to be true. #!amle: "$hen did you sto beating your wife%" "his question assumes that the erson has beaten his wife. "Objection, your Honor, the question is comound." A question is objetionab!e on t"e groun# t"at it is om$oun# if: It joins two or more questions ordinarily joined with the word "or" or the word "and." "Objection, your Honor, the question is too general." A question is too genera!% broa#% or in#efinite% if: It ermits the witness to resond with testimony which may be irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible. #ach question should limit the witness to a secific answer on a secific subject. "Objection, your Honor, the question is hearsay." A question is "earsay if: It invites the witness to offer an out&of&court statement to rove the truth of some matter in court. "here are many e!cetions to the hearsay rule. A question is irre!evant if: It invites or causes the witness to give evidence not related to the facts of the case at hand. "Objection, your Honor, the question is leading." A question is !ea#ing if: It is one that suggests to the witness the answer the e!amining arty desires. However, this tye of question is allowed on cross&e!amination of a witness. "Objection, your Honor, the question mis&states the evidence." A question misstates t"e evi#ene if: It misstates or misquotes the testimony of a witness or any other evidence roduced at a hearing or at a trial. "Objection, your Honor, the question calls for a narrative answer." A question a!!s for a &narrative ans'er& if: It invites the witness to narrate a series of occurrences, which may roduce irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible testimony. 'uestion and (nswer interrogation is the standard format. It allows oosing counsel to object to imroer questions. "Objection, your Honor, the question calls for seculation." A question is s$eu!ative if: It invites or causes the witness to seculate or answer on the basis of conjecture. (an#!ing Tria! Objetions by )osh *amson on +etember ,-, .-// 0o matter how many motions you file, or how well reared you are during trial, objectionable testimony will come u. "his testimony could be rejudicial to your client, esecially in front of a jury, so it is imerative that you know how to roerly object during a trial. I see attorneys flounder with objection arguments on a regular basis, which makes them look weak in front of a judge or jury, even if their objection is sot on. T"e )orm $hen inadmissible testimony comes out, or is about to come out, you should object. "hat sentence, in theory, sounds very simle. 1et I can2t go more than a week or two without seeing an attorney sit at counsel table and just start making an argument to e!clude the evidence. If you2re going to object, you should stand, say 3Objection your honor4 and give the basis for your objection. $hile some courtrooms allow lawyers to sit while e!amining witnesses, you should never sit when addressing the court. "hat2s what an objection is, a statement to the court. "his means the objection should be directed at the judge, and never oosing counsel. $hen an objection is aroriate, you have to do it quickly. In a jury trial, a failure to object in time could mean that the cat is out of the bag. (lthough most aellate courts believe in the curative owers of a judge2s instructions, I always say it2s better to be safe than sorry. "hat means you have to reali5e an objection is necessary, rise, and state the objection all within one or two seconds. It2s easy to stand u and make a very teid objection because you aren2t sure if you2re correct. *iting the roer rule isn2t the whole ball game here. $hen you stand to make your objection, say it with as much confidence as you can muster. 6oth the judge and jury will be more likely to agree with you if you sound like you know what you2re talking about. In other words, when necessary: fake it till you make it. T"e Substane "he substance of your objection hinges on the setting. In an administrative hearing or bench trial, you should stand, say 3Objection your honor4 and follow u with a brief e!lanation. 7or e!amle: Attorney *: "hen what did the eye witness say% +itness: $ell, he told us8 Attorney ,: Objection your honor, the witness is about to testify to hearsay. It2s an eye witness and not a arty oonent, and there2s been no foundation for any e!cetions. "hat2s it. 9ess than thirty words and this attorney2s objection is roerly reserved on the record, and she has given the judge enough e!lanation to work with. 0ow the judge can either rule immediately or let oosing counsel argue the objection. (t that oint, you have to rely on your knowledge of the rules of evidence, along with the judge2s, to flesh out the objection. In a jury setting you need to take a slightly different aroach. It is wholly inaroriate to make an e!tended objection argument in front of the jury. On television, we often see attorneys make long&winded objections and in doing so, resent inadmissible evidence to the jury. "hat kind of imroer behavior in the courtroom can quickly hurt your reutation, not to mention your client2s case. :uring a jury trial, your objections need to be more succinct and not reveal any facts or argue any law. "o make an objection, just stand and say 3Objection your honor, hearsay.4 "he 7ederal ;ules of #vidence require that you lace the reasons for your objection on the record. (nything more than the grounds for your objection is both unnecessary and imroer. Once you get out the grounds for the objection, ask to aroach and have all the legal argument conducted outside the hearing of the jury. T"e Ot"er Si#e Of course, if one side is objecting to testimony, the other side is attemting to admit the testimony. "his means you have to be ready to resond to objections when they come u. 1ou should be able to redict a lot of the objections based on the questions you will ask and the witness rearation you2ve done. Have resonses ready, or be reared to move on to another question. $hen resonding to an objection, you should sound just as confident as the objecting attorney. (lso, if the objecting attorney does not ask to aroach, you should do that in a jury trial. 7inally, always have a backu final question. 0othing looks worse than sitting down from an e!amination on a sustained question. It looks like oosing counsel got you to sto asking questions altogether. +ure, you may have missed out on your great final 5inger, but have something else u your sleeve. <hoto: htt:==www.flickr.com=hotos=kejadlen=>.,?.>/-@=A "agged as: evidence, objections, trial "his is a !ist of objetions in (merican law: B/C Droer reasons for objecting to a question asked of a witness include: Ambiguous, confusing, misleading, vague, unintelligible: the question is not clear and recise enough for the witness to roerly answer Arguing the law: counsel is instructing the jury on the law. Argumentative: the question makes an argument rather than asking a question Asked and answered: when the same attorney continues to ask the same question and they have already received an answer. Esually seen after direct, but not always. Asks the jury to prejudge the evidence: the jury cannot romise to vote a certain way, even if certain facts are roved. Asking a question which is not related to an intelligent exercise of a peremptory challenge or challenge for cause: if oosing counsel asks such a question during voir dire <i.e. the jury selection rocess.A Assumes facts not in evidence: the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown Badgering: counsel is antagoni5ing the witness in order to rovoke a resonse, either by asking questions without giving the witness an oortunity to answer or by oenly mocking the witness. Best evidence rule: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if availableF for e!amle, rather than asking a witness about the contents of a document, the actual document should be entered into evidence. Generally, a non&e!ert witness is not allowed to describe what is in a document without the document itself being introduced into evidence. 7ull original document should be introduced into evidence instead of a coy, but judges often allow coies if there is no disute about authenticity. (lso, some documents are e!emt by hearsay rules of evidence. B.C Beyond the scope: ( question asked during cross&e!amination has to be within the scoe of direct, and so on. Calls for a conclusion: the question asks for an oinion rather than facts Calls for speculation: the question asks the witness to guess the answer rather than to rely on known facts Compound question: multile questions asked together Hearsay: the witness does not know the answer ersonally but heard it from another. "here are several e!cetions to the rule against hearsay in E.+. law. B.C 7ederal ;ule of #vidence H-, lists the following: </A resent sense imression, <.A e!cited utterance, <,A then e!isting mental, emotional, or hysical condition, <>A ... medical diagnosis or treatment, <IA recorded recollection, <?A records of regularly conducted activity, <@A absence of entry in records ..., <HA ublic records and reorts, <JA records of vital statistics, </-A absence of ublic record or entry, <//A records of religious organi5ations, </.A marriage, batismal, and similar certificates, </,A family records, </>A ... roerty records, </IA statements in documents affecting an interest in roerty, </?A statements in ancient documents, </@A market reorts, commercial ublications, </HA learned treatises, </JA reutation concerning ersonal or family history, <.-A reutation concerning boundaries or general history, <./A reutation as to character, <..A judgment of revious conviction, and <.,A judgment as to ersonal, family or general history, or boundaries. B.C Incompetent: the witness is not qualified to answer the question Inflammatory: the question is intended to cause rejudice eading question <:irect e!amination onlyA: the question suggests the answer to the witness. 9eading questions are ermitted if the attorney conducting the e!amination has received ermission to treat the witness as a hostile witness. 9eading questions are also ermitted on cross&e!amination, as witnesses called by the oosing arty are resumed hostile. !arrative: the question asks the witness to relate a story rather than state secific facts "rivilege: the witness may be rotected by law from answering the question Irrelevant or immaterial: the question is not about the issues in the trial #isstates evidence $ misquotes witness $ improper characteri%ation of evidence: this objection often overruled, but can be used to signal a roblem to withness, judge and jury B,C Counsel is testifying: this objection some time used when consel is 3leading4 or 3argumentative4 or 3assumes facts not in evidence.4 Droer reasons for objecting to material evidence include: ack of foundation: the evidence lacks testimony as to its authenticity or source &ruit of the poisonous tree: the evidence was obtained illegally, or the investigative methods leading to its discovery were illegal Incomplete: oosing arty only introducing art of the writing <conversation=act=declarationA, taken out of conte!t. Ender the evidence rule roviding for comleteness, other arty can move to introduce additional arts. B>C If any documents resented for the review, the judge and other arty entitled to a comlete coy, not a artial coy, of the document. $hen withness resented with a surrise document, he should be able to take time to study it, before he can answer any questions. Best evidence rule or hearsay evidence: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available. However, some documents are self&authenticating under ;ule J-., such as </A domestic ublic documents under seal, <.A domestic ublic documents not under seal, but bearing a signature of a ublic officer, <,A foreign ublic documents, <>A certified coies of ublic records, <IA official ublications, <?A newsaers and eriodicals, <@A trade inscritions and the like, <HA acknowledged documents <i.e. by a notary ublicA, <JA commercial aer and related documents, </-A resumtions under (cts of *ongress, <//A certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity, </.A certified foreign records of regularly conducted activity. B.C Droer reasons for objecting to a witnessKs answer include: !arrative: the witness is relating a story in resonse to a question that does not call for one !on'responsive: the witnessKs resonse constitutes an answer to a question other than the one that was asked, or no answer at all !othing pending: the witness continues to seak on matters irrelevant to the question. #!amle: 3:id your mother call%4 31eah. (he called at )*++." Oosing counsel can object to the latter art of this statement, since it answers a question that was not asked. $ith some concern for annoying the court, counsel will selectively use this to revent a witness from getting into self&serving answers.