Assignment

For Law on Evidence:

10 Grounds for Objection:

a) Direct Examination
b) Cross Examination
c) Re-direct examination
d) Re-cross Examination

10 examples of Leading Questions

10 examples of Misleading Questions

SUBMITTED TO: ATTY. RONEY JONE GANDEZA

SUBMITTED BY: Edralyn Joy W. Angnen
 10 Grounds for objection
Direct Examination
1. 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.

 Counsel for the plaintiff asks the witness. "During the conversation,
didn't the defendant declare that he would not deliver the
merchandise?"
 "Objection, your honor. Counsel is leading the witness."

2. Asked and answered: when the same attorney continues to ask the same

question and they have already received an answer.

 On Direct Examination - Counsel A asks B, "Did X stop for the stop sign?
B answers, "No, he did not."
A then asks, "Let me be sure we understand. Did X stop for the stop
sign?
 "Objection, your honor. This question has been asked and answered."

3. 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.
4. Assumes facts not in evidence: the question assumes something as true for
which no evidence has been shown.
5. Calls for a conclusion: the question asks for an opinion rather than facts.
6. Hearsay: the witness does not know the answer personally but heard it from
another.

 Counsel: Mr. X did you saw the victim run during the red light?
 Mr X: I heard from Ms. Y that she saw the victim run during the red light.
 Objection your honor.

7. Narrative: the question asks the witness to relate a story rather than state
specific facts.
  The attorney asks A, "Please tell us all of the conversations you had with
X-before X started the-job."
 "Objection, your honor. Counsel's question calls for a narrative response."
8. Irrelevant or immaterial: the question is not about the issues in the trial.

9. Objection to the question for the proper foundation has not been laid
10. Incompetent: the witness is not qualified to answer the question.
Cross Examination

1. Ambiguous, confusing, misleading, vague, and unintelligible: the question is not

clear and precise enough for the witness to properly answer.

 asking a witness what they did “yesterday.”

2. Argumentative: the question makes an argument rather than asking a question.

 “How can you sit here and lie to the court about your attitude towards
the victim?”
3. 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.
4. Beyond the scope: A question asked during cross-examination has to be within
the scope of direct, and so on.

 During Direct examination:

 Counsel 1: On January 1st 2020 you saw the victim and her
husband fighting?
 Witness: Yes Sir.
 During Cross examination
 Counsel 2: On January 5th 2020, you saw the victim together
with another man?
 Counsel 1: Objection your Honor.
5. Calls for speculation: the question asks the witness to guess the answer rather
than to rely on known facts.

 asking Witness A what Witness B was thinking.

6. Compound question: multiple questions asked together.

 "Did you determine the point of impact from conversations with witnesses
and from physical marks, such as debris in the road?"
  "Objection, your honor, counsel is asking a compound question."

7. Inflammatory: the question is intended to cause prejudice.

8. Counsel is testifying: this is objection sometimes used when counsel is “leading”
or “argumentative” or “assumes facts not in evidence.”
9. Not Letting a witness complete an answer. This is a valid objection, as long as it
is clear the witness is being responsive.
10. Non-responsive: Witness won’t answer, or the answer they do give does not
answer the question posed.

 Lawyer 1: what color the car was that ran the stop sign?
 Witness: testifies “that a woman was driving the car.”
 Lawyerl 2 : Objection your Honor.

Re-direct Examination
1. Beyond Scope (of direct, cross) - The evidence being solicited was not covered
by the opposing counsel while questioning the witness and is not relevant to any
of the previous issues covered.
2. Misleading Questions
3. Relevance - The evidence being solicited does not relate to merits of the case or
another admissible purpose such as foundation or permissible character
evidence.
4. Vague: The question is not specific or focused enough
5. Leading question : the question suggests the answer to the witness
6. Irrelevant or immaterial: the question is not about the issues in the trial.
7. The question is simply an attempt to repeat evidence already given in chief
8. The question mis-states the evidence.
9.  coaching the witness.  The Lawyer attempts to give hints or answers to a
witness on the stand by nodding or shaking head, mouthing words to the witness
on the stand, or prompting in some other fashion.
10. Privilege: the witness may be protected by law from answering the question.

Re-cross Examination
1. The question goes beyond re-direct examination
2. Leading question : the question suggests the answer to the witness
3. Irrelevant or immaterial: the question is not about the issues in the trial.
4. Misleading Questions
5. Lack of foundation: the evidence lacks testimony as to its authenticity or source.
Narrative: the witness is relating a story in response to a question that does not
call for one.

6. Nothing pending: the witness continues to speak on matters irrelevant to the

question.

7. Objection: Calls for Speculation

Lawyer 1: Was the man with the ponytail thinking about killing the cashier for
not refunding his money?
Lawyer 2: Objection! Calls for speculation.

8. Assumes Facts Not in Evidence Objections

Evidentiary objections such as assumes facts not in evidence are closely related
to foundation objections

Lawyer 1: Where were you at the time of the accident?

Witness: I was standing at the bus stop.
Lawyer 1: What did the driver of the black van throw out of the window?
Lawyer 2: Objection. The question assumes facts not in evidence

9. The non-responsive objection is a common objection used in court when a

witness is not responding properly to questions asked under oath.

Lawyer 1: In what year did you meet Bozo?

Witness: We’ve known each other since we were high school students . A lot of
people don’t know that Bozo was quite the ladies’ man . . . anyway, when he got
back from his second tour in Afghanistan, I . . .
Lawyer 2: Objection. Non-responsive.
Judge: Sustained. Mr. Dela Cruz, please answer the question.
Witness: Huh? What was the question?
Lawyer 1: How long have you known Bozo?
Witness: 12 years . . . I’ve known him since the very day he won his first singing
contest, and I’m telling you, no way Bozo is guilty of any of these charges . . .
Lawyer 2: Objection. Non-responsive.

10. Compound Question This objection is made when counsel asks a compound
question. A compound question is a question that actually asks multiple things,
all linked by “and” or “or”.
 “Did you determine the time of death by interviewing witnesses and by
requesting the autopsy report written by the medico-legal officer?”
 10 examples of leading question
1. “The defendant owned the firearm that is an exhibit in this case, correct?” “Yes.”
2. “And this is the firearm that was used in the murder, correct?” “Yes”.
3. "Was John wearing a white shirt?"  "Yes, a white shirt!"
4. "Did you hear the customer threaten to shoot the bartender?" "Yes."
5. “Did you see Michael at 3 p.m.?” would qualify, under most circumstances, as a
leading question; it plants the suggestion of the corresponding time period in the
subject’s mind.
6. Do you remember making an affidavit on November 7, 2015?
7. Is this the affidavit you swore?
8. Did you go to school with the man that murdered Pedro Penduko?
9. “Did Janice strike you in the face, with her fist?” would qualify as a leading
question; there are too many variables in the question for a simple, reliable
answer.
10. "Didn't the defendant appear to you to be speeding?" 

10 examples of misleading questions

1. “How fast was the first car going when it smashed into the second car?”
2. “You testified that you and the accused were in a car bound for Tarlac. How fast
were you driving?”
3. “Mr. Dela Cruz you testified that you saw the victim outside your house. Were
you at the balcony that time?”
4. Didn’t you only drink water all night while the plaintiff had four bottles of beer?
5. “Ms. Maria, you witnessed that the accused was running away from the crime
scene. Was the accused holding a knife?”
6. Previous statement of the witness: “I was home with my girlfriend until 7 pm on
Saturday”
During Cross Examination Counsel 2: “But in your witness statement, didn’t you
state you were home only until 6 pm?”
7. Before you hit the other car, had it already entered the other lane of the street?
8. Mr. Pedro, you testified that you had a heated argument with your wife before
she was died. When did you stop beating your wife?
9. Previous statement of the witness: “The red car was going at least 90 km/h”
During Cross Examination Counsel 2: “you said the car was going pretty fast,
right?”
10. Counsel: Was the defendant drinking?
Witness: yes
Counsel: What did this drunken man do next?