Information Courtroom Objections

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matt

Member
DOJ
Judge
Apr 1, 2023
53
5
8

COURTROOM OBJECTIONS​

Ambiguous
Question is not clear and concise enough for the witness to properly answer.

Argumentative
Question makes an argument rather than asking a question.

Asked and Answered
Attorney asks the same question and have received an answer.

Assuming facts
Question assumes facts that are not submitted to evidence.

Badgering
Counsel is antagonizing the witness to provoke a response, i.e continuously asking questions to the witness without allowing them time to answer.

Beyond the Scope
A question asked by the cross-examiner that is not pertaining to the information that was obtained during direct examination.

Calls for Conclusion
Question asks for opinion rather than facts.

Calls for Speculation
Question asks the witness to guess the answer rather than known facts.

Compound Question
Multiple questions are asked at one time before the witness can answer.

Hearsay
Witness does not know the answer but heard it from someone else or was told the answer.

Incompetent
Witness is not qualified to answer the question.

Inflammatory
Question intended to cause prejudice.

Irrelevant
Question is not about the issues in the trial.

Leading
Question suggests the answer to the witness (only when the attorney has received the permission to treat the witness as a hostile witness / cross-examination).

Misstates evidence / witness
Misstating what either attorney, witness, or evidence states.

Narrative
Question asks witness to relate a story rather than facts (unless a timeline).

Privilege
Witness may be protected by law from answering the question.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Evidence obtained illegally.

Incomplete
Evidence is only part of the conversation/act/declaration and taken out of context.

Lack of Foundation
Evidence lacks testimony.

Non-responsive
Witness response is not pertaining to the question.

Nothing Pending
Witness continues to speak when there is no question, or an objection.

Federal
Evidence or testimony provided breaks laws higher than what can be seen to in a courtroom. For example, a defendant openly admits to using their friends as hostages, hence the hostages were not being kidnapped. Please see the rules here regarding what is federal and what is not.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.