Grounds for Objection during Trial

The Objection Definition and Example

Hearsay Evidence A person can only testify as to what he or she

knows to be true, not what he or she heard from
someone else.

If a witness tries to testify about what a non-

party told him or her or tries to enter into
evidence something in writing that a non-party
wrote, then the testimony or written evidence is
objectionable as hearsay.

Leading Question If a question is asked during direct examination

which leads the witness to a particular answer,
then you can object to the question as leading.
This is often the case with questions answerable
with a mere “yes” or “no”.

Keep in mind that the judge might allow some

leading questions during direct examination for
simple background information to move the
testimony along faster. For example, let’s say the
other party’s mother is testifying, the judge might
allow the question “You are the respondent’s
mother, correct?” instead of “How do you know
the respondent?” However, when someone is
asking about issues that directly relate to the
case, leading a witness is not allowed.

Example: During direct examination, this leading

question could be objected to: “The person you
saw leaving the crime scene was the defendant,
correct?” Instead, it should be asked: “Who did
you see leaving the crime scene?”

Relevance You can object to the relevance of evidence if you

think a piece of evidence or something a witness
is saying has nothing to do with the case or it is
not important in determining who should win in
court.

Example: In a rape case, the victim is asked how

 many boyfriends she has had.

Unfair/prejudicial Question You can object to evidence, even if it’s relevant, if

the evidence would unfairly turn the judge or jury
against you. This is what is meant by saying the
evidence is prejudicial.

Example: Evidence that one of the parties has

been in jail before may be relevant, but that
evidence may also be unfairly prejudicial if it
paints the party in a bad light in the eyes of the
judge.

Compound question A compound question is when two or more

questions are combined as one question.
Compound questions are not allowed because
they can confuse the witness, the judge, and the
jury. Also, it may not be clear for the court record
which of the questions the witness is answering.

Example: Where were you when the crime

happened and who was with you at that time?

Just separate the questions, ask them one at a

time.

Argumentative When the person asking cross-examination

questions begins to argue with the witness,
known as “badgering the witness,” then the
other party can object to the questioning as
argumentative.

Example:
Opposing counsel: “You went to the crime scene
with my client, correct?”
You: “No, I did not.”
Opposing counsel: “Oh come on, how come your
finger prints were all over the place?”
You: “Objection, Your Honor, argumentative.”

Question of Opinion If a witness testifies about an opinion s/he has

that is technical in nature and not based on any
facts the witness has first-hand knowledge of,
 then you may be able to object based on it being
their opinion. Generally, only a witness who has
been recognized as an expert witness by the
judge can offer an opinion.

Example: In a criminal case, you cannot ask a

witness who was a mere bystander to testify that
the defendant was “crazy or mentally unsound”
during the commission crime”

Speculation or Lack of Personal Knowledge This objection is made when either an attorney
asks the witness a question of which they have
no personal knowledge, or when a witness begins
to testify about something they have not directly
observed (speculation). Witnesses are only
allowed to testify about their own direct
experiences and thoughts. Testifying as to what
they believe may have happened, or about
another person’s state of mind, are all considered
improper evidence. The only exception in mock
trial is that expert witnesses, or those who are
called to the stand because of particular
knowledge or experience, are usually given
greater exemption from this objection. It would
not be speculation for a signature authenticator
to testify the defendant is guilty of fraud based
on that expert’s analysis and professional
opinion.

The speculation objection can be used in two

different situations.

First, if a witness does not know a fact to be true

or not, but testifies about it anyway, this
testimony would be objectionable as speculation.
A witness must have personal knowledge of a
fact to testify about that fact and put it into the
court record.

Example: A witness could not testify that s/he

thinks a person left the house at 8:00 pm unless
s/he actually saw the person leave the house, or
s/he has some other valid basis for that belief.

Second, if a question that is posed can only be

answered by using speculation, the question
would be objectionable.
 Example:
Opposing attorney: “What do you think your
sister was thinking when she left?”
You: “Objection, Your Honor, the question calls
for speculation.”

Non-responsive to the Question When a witness starts responding to a question

with information that is completely unrelated to
the question, you can object to it as being “non-
responsive.” This can be especially important in
cross-examination when you are looking for very
specific “yes” or “no” answers.

In addition, sometimes when a witness is being

questioned on direct examination, s/he will make
an effort to explain away a bad answer during the
next question, regardless of what the question
asked is. This is another instance when you could
object to the non-responsive answer.

Vague or Ambiguous Question/Answer A vague question is when it is difficult or

impossible to tell what the question is about. You
would want to object to a vague question that is
asked of your witness because of the risk that the
witness will misunderstand the question and say
something that will hurt your case. If the
question is objected to, the person asking the
question might then be able to ask the question
in a different way that makes more sense or is
more specific.

Example: Let’s say the opposing party asks “Can

you tell the court where you went earlier?” The
term “earlier” is not specific enough; it’s vague.
After an objection, the question could be
rephrased to say “Can you tell the court where
you went this morning right before you came to
court?”

In addition, a question that refers to “this” or

“that” might be too vague if there is no context
as to what “this” or “that” refers to.
 Asked and answered Questions Sometimes during cross-examination, the person
asking questions might ask the same question
over and over again, perhaps in slightly different
ways, or re-ask a question s/he had asked earlier
in the testimony. What’s unique about this
objection is that it could come up in two different
scenarios:

First, opposing counsel could repeatedly ask you

or your witness the same question, hoping that
contradicting answers will be given.

Second, opposing counsel could repeatedly ask

his or her own client the same question in slightly
different ways, hoping that the client will give a
better answer than one given before.

Either way, a question can only be asked once,

and after it has been answered, any further
attempts to ask the question are objectionable.

Question asks for an answer where the A question or response can be objectionable if a
Foundation that was not properly been laid person failed to explain the background
circumstances of how s/he knows the
information s/he is testifying about, or are being
asked about. When answering about specific
facts, the witness has to set the stage and explain
how s/he knows the information that s/he
knows.

Example: A person can’t testify that it was a

certain person’s voice on the phone, without first
explaining that s/he had spoken with the person
many times over the last few years and the call
came from the same number.

Same with a signature. He or she cannot testify

on the authenticity of a person’s signature if he
or she is not familiar or has not seen the person’s
signature in the past.

Question Calls for Narrative/Narrative Answer This objection is made when either a witness
begins telling a narrative as part of their answer,
or counsel’s question calls for a narrative. It is
admissible for a witness to testify about what
happened, but they must do so in response to a
 question. This objection exists to prevent long
winded witness answers. If a witness has
answered the question, but continues telling a
story, this objection should be made.

Example: “First thing I did that was get up, and go

to work. It was fairly normal day at work until the
robbery, which happened at around 1 pm. After
that the police came, and began interviews. I was
taken to the station, and was there until around
10 pm. After this, I came back home….”

Creation of a Material Fact This objection is made when an attorney believes

that a witness has made a factual error in their
testimony regarding the case. This objection can
also be applied if a question is extends past the
scope of the witness’ statement and that it “calls
for the creation of a material fact by the
witness”.

Generally, this objection should only be used as a

last resort, and for major factual missteps. If the
witness makes a minor error without huge
significance to the case, this can be brought up
during cross examination; the word “material” in
the title of the objection suggests that this
objection should only be used for errors that are
relevant and meaningful for the case at hand.

Additionally, even if a witness tells a significant

falsehood on the stand, it will always be better to
take up the issue on cross examination, and
impeach the witness through the use of their
own witness statement. The effect of this is
twofold, in that the witness is shown to have lied,
and the judge sees the greater skill of the
crossing attorney. The CMF objection should be
made in the situation when an attorney believes
they will have insufficient time for cross
examination, or in the case they believe a more
immediate and forceful course of action is
necessary.

Example: “I was home with my girlfriend until 7

pm on Saturday”, “But in your witness statement,
didn’t you state you were home only until 6 pm?”
 Improper Character Evidence This objection is made when improper character
evidence has been given as testimony in court.
Improper character evidence is when character
evidence (think general personality traits) is used
to show how a person acted in a specific
situation. There are three exceptions to this rule
in which this kind of character evidence is
permissible:

If this evidence is offered by the defense and

applied to the character and actions of the
defendant to prove innocence, it is admissible.

If this evidence is offered by the defense and

applied to the character and actions of the victim
to prove innocence, it is admissible.

If this evidence is offered to show dishonesty or a

tendency to lie by any witness, it is admissible. In
this situation, the opposing counsel may rebut
with positive character evidence to show the
contrary.

Example: “The defendant was always rude to me,

and particularly so on the day of the murder.”

Lay Witness Opinion This objection is made when lay witnesses

(witnesses who are not qualified as experts and
do not personal experience), testify with personal
inferences or subjective statements. Opinion
testimony is only admissible when it is based on
perceptions/observations made with the
witness’s five senses, and is helpful to clearer
understanding of the witness’s testimony. This
objection is similar to Lacks Personal
Knowledge/Speculation, and sometimes can be
used interchangeably.

Example: “I believe the defendant was in a crazed

state of mind.”

Question calls for a Conclusion of Fact or There is a wide distinction between facts and a
Conclusion of Law conclusion from facts. It is difficult, at times, to
distinguish a conclusion of fact from a conclusion
of law. At times, the conclusion of fact may be
also a conclusion of law — for example, to say
that a right once belonging to A is now the
property of B, is a conclusion of law as well as a
conclusion of fact. (Adams vs. Holley, 12
Howard's Practice, 326.) To charge that A is guilty
of fraud is to charge a conclusion of law as well as
to state a conclusion of facts. The statement in
the decision of the court in this case "that the
plaintiff has the right to recover one undivided
seventh part of the lands described in said
complaint, she being, according to the evidence,
the owner of the said seventh part," is also a
conclusion of fact as well as a conclusion of law.
No court is justified in reaching that conclusion
without having certain ultimate facts presented
to it. No court would be justified in finding that A
was guilty of fraud in the absence of hearing
proof upon certain ultimate facts. There may be
much evidence introduced for the purpose of
establishing certain ultimate facts, which ultimate
facts, taken together, justify a conclusion — for
example, that A is guilty of fraud.

There is much conflict among the authorities with

reference to whether or not certain statements
are conclusions of law or conclusions of fact. A
statement of fact in a pleading may be a
conclusion of fact or law if found in a judgment or
decision. For example, if A alleges in his pleading
that he is the owner of certain personal property
and therefore entitled to the possession of the
same, it is a statement of a fact, whereas, if the
same statements were found in the judgment of
the court it might be regarded as a conclusion of
fact. So also of duress; to allege in the complaint
that the plaintiff was compelled to pay a sum of
money is a conclusion of law (Commercial Bank
vs. City of Rochester, 41 Barber, 341; 41 N. Y.,
619), while to say that he was threatened by the
defendant with death or with great bodily injury,
and in fear of same paid a sum of money, etc., or
that he was illegally imprisonment and to procure
a release, paid, etc., would doubtless be held to
be a statement of facts. It is not possible to
formulate a definition or a statement that will
always enable us to distinguish what is meant by
a conclusion of law in contradiction from a
conclusion of fact; yet, in inspecting pleadings or
 judgments, it will seldom be difficult to make the
distinction.

By the foregoing rule that the courts below must

make a finding of fact is not meant that they
must recite all of the evidence given in the case,
but simply the essential ultimate facts which are
supported by the evidence from which the
conclusion of facts may be drawn.

Objection to the question for it invades the field Example: When one of the spouses is called to
of confidential communication the witness stand and he or she is called to testify
on what was said to him/her in private by his/her
spouse inside their bedroom is in violation of the
marital privileged communication rule.

Objection to Misleading Question Or argumentative question means that a

question: (a) uses logic in such a way that it
deliberately causes someone to reach an
incorrect conclusion, and (b) makes an argument
rather than asks a question. This may typically an
objection made to a line of questioning to a
witness during a trial.

Objection to the question for it tends to elicit Example: when the question pertains to a
evidence which is not the Original Document document and what is presented is a mere
(formerly Best Evidence Rule) photocopy instead of the original document.

Objection to the question for the document Self-serving statements are inadmissible because
offered is self-serving the adverse party is not given the opportunity for
cross-examination, and their admission would
encourage fabrication of testimony. This cannot
be said of a party’s testimony in court made
under oath, with full opportunity on the part of
the opposing party for cross-examination.