Objection (law)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Objection Overruled links here. For the album by heavy metal band Accept, see Objection Overruled (album). For the song by thrash metal band Exodus, see Impact is Imminent.

Globe icon
 This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

In the law of the United States of America, an objection is a formal protest raised in court during a trial to disallow a witness's testimony or other evidence which would be in violation of the rules of evidence or other procedural law. An objection is typically raised after the opposing party asks a question of the witness, but before the witness can answer, or when the opposing party is about to enter something into evidence. The judge then makes a ruling on whether the objection is "sustained" (the judge agrees with the objection and disallows the question, testimony, or evidence) or "overruled" (the judge disagrees with the objection and allows the question, testimony, or evidence). An attorney may choose to "rephrase" a question that has been objected to, so long as the judge permits it.

An objection may also be raised against a judge's ruling, in order to preserve the right to appeal the ruling.

Historically, an attorney had to promptly take an exception (by saying "I except" followed by a reason) after an objection was overruled in order to preserve it for appeal, or else the objection was permanently waived. Eventually most lawyers and judges came to recognize that exceptions were a waste of time. Starting in the 1970s, exceptions were abolished in the federal courts[1] and in many state courts as well. For example, California did not technically abolish exceptions, but merely rendered them superfluous by simply treating just about every ruling of the trial court as automatically excepted to.[2] Thus, in most courts, it is now sufficient that the objection was clearly made on the record.

[edit] Types of objections

Proper reasons for objecting to a question asked of a witness include:

  • Ambiguous, confusing, misleading, vague, unintelligible: the question is not clear and precise enough for the witness to properly answer
  • Arguing the case: opposing counsel is arguing their case in their opening statement.
  • 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: the question has been asked and answered before
  • Asks the jury to prejudge the evidence: the jury cannot promise to vote a certain way, even if certain facts are proved.
  • Asking a question which is not related to an intelligent exercise of a peremptory challenge or challenge for cause: if opposing counsel asks such a question during voir dire.
  • Assumes facts not in evidence: the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown
  • Badgering: counsel is antagonizing the witness in order to provoke a response, either by asking questions without giving the witness an opportunity to answer or by openly mocking the witness.
  • Best evidence rule: requires that the original source of evidence is required if available; for example, rather than asking a witness about the contents of a document, the actual document should be entered into evidence
  • Beyond the scope: A question asked during cross-examination has to be within the scope of direct, and so on.
  • Calls for a conclusion: the question asks for an opinion rather than facts
  • Calls for speculation: the question asks the witness to guess the answer rather than to rely on known facts
  • Compound question: multiple questions asked together
  • Hearsay: the witness does not know the answer personally but heard it from another
  • Incompetent: the witness is not qualified to answer the question
  • Inflammatory: the question is intended to cause prejudice
  • Leading question (Direct examination only): the question suggests the answer to the witness. Leading questions are permitted if the attorney conducting the examination has received permission to treat the witness as a hostile witness. Leading questions are also permitted on cross-examination, as witnesses called by the opposing party are presumed hostile.
  • Narrative: the question asks the witness to relate a story rather than state specific facts
  • Privilege: the witness may be protected by law from answering the question
  • Irrelevant or immaterial: the question is not about the issues in the trial

Proper reasons for objecting to material evidence include:

Proper reasons for objecting to a witness's answer include:

[edit] References

  1. ^ Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a) states that once "the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal."
  2. ^ California Evidence Code Section 647.

[edit] External links

 This legal term article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.