Courtroom Objections

Front 1

AMBIGUOUS

Back 1

Confusing question in that it is capable of being understood in more than one sense

Hint 1

FRE 611(a)

Front 2

ARGUMENTATIVE

Back 2

(1) Counsel's question is really argument to the jury in guise of a question (Example: Counsel summarizes facts, states conclusion, and demands witness agree with conclusion); or

(2) excessive quibbling with witness

Hint 2

FRE 611(a)

Front 3

ASKED AND ANSWERED

Back 3

Unfair to allow counsel to emphasize evidence through repetition. Greater leeway, however, is given on cross-exam, but be especially ready to make this objection during re-direct examination.

Hint 3

FRE 611(a)

Front 4

ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE

Back 4

Fact not testified to is contained in the question

Hint 4

FRE 103(c); 611(a)

Front 5

AUTHENTICATION LACKING

Back 5

Proof must be offered that the exhibit is in fact what it is claimed to be

Hint 5

FRE 103(c); 901(a)

Front 6

BEST EVIDENCE RULE (or, ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE)

Back 6

If rule applies, original document must be offered or its absence accounted for. If contents of document are to be proved, rule usually applies.

Hint 6

FRE 1002

Front 7

"BEYOND SCOPE (OF DIRECT, CROSS, ETC)"

Back 7

Question is unrelated to preceding examination by opposing counsel, or to credibility of the witness. Remember, when responding to this objection, "credibility" is always "within the scope"

Hint 7

FRE 611(b).

Front 8

BOLSTERING

Back 8

Improper to bolster the credibility of a witness before credibility is attacked

Hint 8

FRE 608(a)

Front 9

COMPOUND

Back 9

More than one question contained in counsel's question; the answer could be misunderstood

Hint 9

FRE 611(a)

Front 10

CONCLUSION

Back 10

Except for an expert, witness must testify to facts within personal knowledge; conclusions are for the jury, and counsel during closing argument.

Hint 10

FRE 103(c); 602; 701

Front 11

CONFUSING

Back 11

Unfamiliar words, disjointed phrases, or question confuses facts or evidence.

Hint 11

FRE 611(a)

Front 12

COUNSEL TESTIFYING

Back 12

Opposing counsel is making a statement instead of asking a question

Hint 12

FRE 103(c); 603

Front 13

CUMULATIVE

Back 13

Judge has discretion to control repetitive evidence. Repeated presentation of the same evidence by exhibits or by more witnesses wastes time and is unfair

Hint 13

FRE 403; 611(a)

Front 14

FOUNDATION

Back 14

Failure to lay proper predicate for testimony or exhibit (example: offer of "recorded recollection" without showing failure of memory). This objection may be deemed "too general" to preserve the objection for appeal, so if overruled, be more specific as to what the foundation lacks.

Hint 14

FRE 602; 901(a)

Front 15

HEARSAY (in a question)

Back 15

The answer would elicit hearsay, and no exception has been shown

Hint 15

FRE 103(c); 802

Front 16

HEARSAY (Question did not call for hearsay, but witness gave it anyway)"

Back 16

Make motion to strike and request judge to instruct jury to disregard the response. Mistrial motion may be appropriate

Hint 16

FRE 103(c); 802

Front 17

IMPROPER CHARACTER EVIDENCE

Back 17

Evidence of character and methods of proof are limited

Hint 17

FRE 404-405; 608-609; 610

Front 18

IMPROPER CHARACTERIZATION

Back 18

Counsel's question or witness's response has characterized a person or conduct with unwarranted suggestive, argumentative, or impertinent language ("he looked like a crook")

Hint 18

FRE 103(c); 404-405.

Front 19

IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT

Back 19

Methods of impeachment are limited and specific

Hint 19

FRE 607-610

Front 20

IMPROPER QUESTION or IMPROPER FORM

Back 20

Use this objection only when you know the question is improper, but cannot think of the specific basis for the objection.

Hint 20

FRE 103(c); 611

Front 21

RELEVANCE

Back 21

Would not tend to make any fact that is of consequence more or less probable. Consider motion to strike.

Hint 21

FRE 401

Front 22

LEADING

Back 22

Form of question tends to suggest answer

Hint 22

FRE 611(c)

Front 23

MISQUOTING WITNESS (or MISSTATING EVIDENCE)

Back 23

Counsel's question misstates prior testimony of witness. Similar to objection based on assuming a fact not in evidence.

Hint 23

FRE 103(c)

Front 24

NARRATIVE

Back 24

Question is so broad or covers such a large time period it would allow witness to ramble and possibly present hearsay or other inadmissible evidence

Hint 24

FRE 103(c); 611(a)

Front 25

OPINION

Back 25

Lay opinion or inference which is beyond the scope permitted by FRE 701; personal knowledge lacking; or expert witness has not been qualified as such

Hint 25

FRE 103(c); 602; 701-702

Front 26

PREJUDICE OUTWEIGHS PROBATIVE VALUE

Back 26

Say, "Your Honor, I Object," ask to approach bench, and then argue that "the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. May apply to exhibits as well as testimony. (Don't let the jury hear you say that the evidence is prejudicial---they may be impressed.)

Hint 26

FRE 403.

Front 27

PRIVILEGED

Back 27

Answer would violate valid privilege (lawyer, client, husband)

Hint 27

FRE 103(c); 501-502

Front 28

SPECULATION

Back 28

Question calls for conjecture and allows a witness who lacks personal knowledge to guess

Hint 28

FRE 602; 701

Front 29

UNRESPONSIVE

Back 29

Answer includes testimony not called for by the question. Especially applicable to voluntary response by hostile witness. Note: An objection based solely on this ground is generally deemed appropriate only if made by the examining attorney: therefore, opposing counsel should try to find some additional basis for the objection.