You are on page 1of 5



A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining
party desires is a leading question.


A question which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he has previously stated is a misleading question.


If the question is not important, pertinent, or germane to the matter at hand

or to any issue before the court, the counsel may raise this objection. This is the
most common objection raised by attorneys to questions asked or to answers
given during testimony in a trial.


Usually, questions that are intended to bring out new facts or additional
information are not argumentative. However, when the purpose is to corner a
witness, badger or trick him, the question is more often than not argumentative.
This is especially true when the question tries to point out or emphasize some real
or apparent inconsistencies in a witness’s testimony.


It is an objection to the question for it has already been answered. Once a

question has been asked and answered, it is generally not allowed for that
question to be asked again. If the question is asked again, then the opposing
lawyer might object based on the grounds that the question has been asked and


Hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness

while testifying at the hearing in question and that is offered to prove the truth of
the matter stated.


This objection is with respect to a witness who is disqualified by statute from

testifying, owing to age, lack of knowledge, or mental illness.


The information sought is privileged communication, such as that between

attorney and client, physician and patient, priest and penitent, State secrets
privilege, or husband and wife, and is barred from disclosure.

The best evidence rule means that if a party wants to prove the contents of a
writing – what the documents says – he must present to the court the original of
the writing, if available.

Therefore, what is stated in the document cannot be proven by a mere

copy of the writing or by the oral recollection of a witness, unless the existence
and non-production of the original document are accounted for. The original is
considered preferred evidence, preferred to a mere copy of the writing.


When a party contends that what the document says is not what was agreed
upon by the parties, it is parol evidence rule that should be invoked.


When more than one question is combined in what seems to be a single

question asked of a witness during a trial or deposition. A compound question can
be objected to by opposing counsel since it is confusing to the witness, who is
entitled to answer each question separately. If the objection is sustained the
question must be withdrawn and asked in a series of separate questions.

It is an extra-judicial declaration, oral or written, considered favorable to the
interest of the declarant. It is not admissible as proof of the facts asserted therein
primarily because of its hearsay character. The lack of opportunity to
cross-examine the person who made the declaration renders it objectionable.


To examine a witness, it has to be a specific question directed at the witness

to elicit very specific information. A question that invites a narration of facts is
objectionable. It deprives the opposing counsel of opportunity to make a timely
objection to the introduction of inadmissible testimony.


When there are insulting questions, harsh, or insulting demeanor, the

objection is called badgering the witness. The counsel is trying to intimidate the
witness, or he is trying to put the fear of god on the witness in order to rattle him.


As a general rule, only expert witnesses may render their opinions and such
are admissible; lay witnesses must testify only regarding their observations.
However, lay witnesses’ opinion may be received in evidence regarding the
identity, handwriting or the mental sanity of a person with he is sufficiently
acquainted or has adequate knowledge.