Objections

An attorney can object any time the opposing attorneys have violated the rules of evidence. The attorney wishing to object should stand up and do so at the time of the violation. When an objection is made, the judge may ask the reason for it. Then the judge may turn to the attorney whose question or action is being objected to, and that attorney usually will have a chance to explain why the judge should not accept the objection. The judge will then decide whether a question or answer must be discarded because it has violated a rule of evidence or whether to allow the question or answer to be considered as evidence. The legal term “objection sustained” means that the judge agrees with the objection and excludes the testimony or item objected to. The legal term “objection overruled” means that the judge disagrees with the objection and allows the testimony or item to be considered as evidence.

Standard Objections on Direct and Cross Examination

a) Irrelevant Evidence: “I object your honor. This testimony is irrelevant to the facts of this case.”

b) Leading Questions: “Objection. Counsel is leading the witness.” Remember this is only objectionable when done on direct examination

c) Narrative Questions and Answers: may be objectionable.

d) Improper Character testimony: “Objection. The witness’ character or reputation have not been put in issue.” or “Objection. Only the witness’ reputation/ character for truthfulness is at issue here.”

e) Hearsay: “Objection. Counsel’s question/ the witness’ answer is based on hearsay.” If the witness makes a hearsay statement, the attorney should also say, “and I ask that the statement be stricken from the record.”

f) Opinion: “Objection. Counsel is asking the witness to give an opinion.”

g) Lack of Personal Knowledge: “Objection. The witness has no personal knowledge that would enable him/ her to answer this question.”

h) Lack of Proper Predicate: Exhibits will not be admitted into evidence until they have been identified and shown to be authentic (unless identification and/ or authenticity have been stipulated). Even after proper predicate as been laid, the exhibits may still be objectionable due to relevance, hearsay, etc.

i) Ambiguous Questions: An attorney shall not ask questions that are capable of being understood in two or more possible ways.

j) Non-responsive Answer: A witness’ answer is objectionable if it fails to respond to the question asked.

k) Argumentative Question: An attorney shall not ask a question which asks the witness to agree to a conclusion drawn by the questioner without eliciting testimony as to new facts. However, the Court may, in its discretion, allow limited use of argumentative questions on cross examination.

l) Unfair Extrapolation/ Beyond the Scope of the Statement of Facts

Attorneys shall not ask questions calling for information outside the scope of the case materials or requesting an unfair extrapolation. Unfair extrapolations are best attacked through impeachment and closing arguments and are to be dealt with in the course of the trial. A fair extrapolation is one that is neutral.

Note: Fair extrapolations may be allowed, provided reasonable inference may be made from the witness’ statement. If, in direct examination, an attorney asks a question which calls for extrapolated information pivotal to facts at issue, the information is subject to objection outside the scope of the problem. If in CROSS examination, an attorney asks for unknown information, the witness may or may not respond, so long as any response is consistent with the witness’ statement or affidavit and does not materially affect the witness’ testimony.

m) Asked and Answered: “Objection. Your honor, the question has already been asked and answered.”

Note: Attorneys should stand during objections, examinations, and statements. No objections should be made during opening/closing statements but afterwards the attorneys may indicate what the objection would have been. The opposing counsel should raise his/her hand to be recognized by the judge and may say, “If I had been permitted to object during closing arguments, I would have objected to the opposing team’s statement that.” The presiding judge will not rule on this objection individually and no rebuttal from the opposing team will be heard.