Objections
The basics - quick ones to make sure you're not asleep at the wheel.
Last updated
The basics - quick ones to make sure you're not asleep at the wheel.
Last updated
So, how old were you when you realized it's not like how it was on TV?
I'll admit it: inappropriately old. About the same time I still went around asking everyone I thought would know what an 'Act of David' was.
Objections are rules-based interjections aimed to stop something, in the course of an examination, contrary to the Rules of Evidence, or, in most cases, the list provided to you in the tournament package.
An attorney cannot ask a question which asserts a claim that has not been proven by admitted evidence, testimony, or stipulation.
Questions cannot ask for an overly broad answer or ask about a finite period of time.
A lawyer cannot make an argument, nor ask any witness to make an argument, during an examination. An argument is any legal conclusion that is reserved for the judge and jury.
Don't ask them. Or do, this one doesn't really matter.
When anything is probative, it can prove something. Relevant evidence is probative specifically to the case. If it proves something other than facts needed to determine elements of the charges, it's irrelevant. If it can't prove anything, it's irrelevant.
Other inflammatory evidence may also be unfairly prejudicial, such as photos of a gruesome crime scene, murder weapons, or testimony about the horrific nature of a crime. All these facts may act to agitate the jury and cause them to convict on emotion and not facts.
Of course, it wouldn't be the law if there's not exceptions.
In criminal cases, the defense can enter evidence to prove its pertinent trait or moral character. After, the Crown may provide evidence to rebut it. Defense may also enter evidence about a victim's pertinent trait, which the Crown may then rebut.
Examples of information commonly solicited where the witness would be asked to speculate are emotions, mental states, or motives of other people. Questions like these would ask the witness to speculate about the inner processes of others, something the witness does not have personal knowledge of.
Thank the heavens for Rule 703.
An ultimate opinion is one which deals of the ultimate issue - guilt/liability. In criminal cases, an expert cannot opine about whether the defendant had the mental state or condition to constitute an element of the crime charges or to constitute a defense.
For example, during an insanity defense, the defense medical expert cannot opine directly that the defendant was insane to the point of guiltlessness during the crime.
Under , leading questions (that are, questions which imply its answer) are only allowed on cross examination and when a party called a hostile or adverse witness.
Under , courts have power to conduct examinations in a way that doesn't waste time. Therefore, questions which have been asked and answered in an examination cannot be re-asked. By the same token, questions asked to summarize the examination, or to give a final conclusion, are also dodgy. Try rewording or subtly changing the question to get around the objection.
Under , relevant evidence is any fact with probative value with respect to the current action. 'Probative' is a fancy legal word we use because it makes us feel like law school was worth it.
Under , irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
Under , probative evidence is not admissible when it is unfairly prejudicial. Evidence which tend to cause the jury to convict (or acquit) based on some fact that is not a part of the current case, is unfairly prejudicial. For instance, in many cases, a defendant's past criminal record is not admissible, because though it may prove the defendant's character, that proof tend to cause the jury to think of the defendant as a criminal independent of the case actually before them.
Character evidence is not allowed, generally, to be used to prove that someone acted in accordance with that character in any given case, under . This means that evidence showing a defendant has a history of violence, for instance, cannot be used to prove the defendant was violent in this particular case at trial.
However, in a sexual offense case, under , the defense cannot enter evidence about a victim's other sexual encounters or sexual predisposition. Unless the evidence is about a sexual encounter which can prove physical evidence (such as semen or injuries) came from another source than the defendant, or can prove consent.
Further, under , evidence of past crimes or wrongdoings may be admitted, if and only if, it goes to prove something other than propensity (ie an inclination to act a certain way because someone has acted in that way previously). You can't admit evidence of a past robbery to prove someone robbed a house presently. It can be admitted on non-propensity grounds, such as motive, opportunity, preparation, modus operandi (MO), plan, knowledge, identity, or willfulness. For example, if both the past and present robbery were done by a criminal wearing a ski mask who opened the door by hacking a specific home security system in the same way, the past act can be admitted to prove the MO of the defendant.
Under , a witness can only testify to matters they have personal knowledge of. Whenever a question asks for the witness to talk about something they do not know, the question in effect is asking the witness to speculate. In order to opine about a subject, the witness ought to have perceived it and remembered it.
Under , witnesses not testifying as an expert can only testify about things rationally based on their own perception, or helpful to clearly understand the testimony or a probative fact. A lay witness cannot testify about scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge.
Under , witness who possess scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge by experience, training, or education are expert witnesses. Experts can testify in the form of an opinion, meaning they can draw conclusions with their specialized knowledge.
Under , experts can base their conclusions on any information they perceived or were given to them in the course of their analysis or investigation. This means no more hearsay challenges - the information that led to an expert opinion does not need to be admissible for the opinion to be admissible.
