Scribd
Upload
287 views2 pages

Types of Objection

The document outlines several proper grounds for objecting to questions asked of witnesses in court, evidence presented, and witnesses' answers. Objections may be raised if a question is ambiguous, argumentative, asks a witness to assume facts not in evidence, asks for an improper conclusion or speculation, or violates other rules of evidence or procedure. Similarly, evidence can be objected to if its authenticity has not been established or it was obtained illegally, and answers can be objected to if the witness provides an unsolicited narrative or non-responsive statement.

Uploaded by

carissadelacruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
287 views2 pages

Types of Objection

The document outlines several proper grounds for objecting to questions asked of witnesses in court, evidence presented, and witnesses' answers. Objections may be raised if a question is ambiguous, argumentative, asks a witness to assume facts not in evidence, asks for an improper conclusion or speculation, or violates other rules of evidence or procedure. Similarly, evidence can be objected to if its authenticity has not been established or it was obtained illegally, and answers can be objected to if the witness provides an unsolicited narrative or non-responsive statement.

Uploaded by

carissadelacruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION

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

 Ambiguous, confusing, misleading, vague, and unintelligible: the


question is not clear and precise enough for the witness to properly
answer.

 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.

 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, if available,


document should be entered into evidence. Full original document should be
introduced into evidence instead of a copy, but judges often allow copies
if there is no dispute about authenticity. Some documents are exempt
by hearsay rules of evidence.[2]

 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. However, there are several exceptions to the rule
against hearsay.

 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.

 Counsel is testifying: this is objection sometimes used when counsel is


“leading” or “argumentative” or “assumes facts not in evidence.”

Proper reasons for objecting to material evidence include:

 Lack of foundation: the evidence lacks testimony as to its authenticity


or source.

 Fruit of the poisonous tree: the evidence was obtained illegally, or the
investigative methods leading to its discovery were illegal.

 Best evidence rule or hearsay evidence: requires that the original


source of evidence is required.

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

 Narrative: the witness is relating a story in response to a question


that does not call for one.

 Non-responsive: the witness's response constitutes an answer to a


question other than the one that was asked, or no answer at all.

 Nothing pending: the witness continues to speak on matters irrelevant to


the question.

You might also like