OBJECTIONS
all references to the subject evidence .Not
What are they: Objections are the means
by which the evidentiary disputes are
raised and resolved.
Where made: Objections may be made to
an attorney’s questions, to a witness’s
testimony, to the introduction or use of
exhibits, to a lawyer’s demeanor or
behavior, and even to the conduct of the
judge. Objections can be made to
questions, answers, exhibits, and virtually
anything else that occurs during a trial.
Purpose and function:
An objection is a request that the court
rule on the admissibility of certain
testimony or evidence. The purpose of
objection is to prevent the introduction or
consideration of inadmissible information.
Our court system relies on opposing
attorneys to present evidence to the judge
to decide on its admissibility. An objection
then, is a signal to the judge that there is a
disagreement between the counsel
concerning the rules of evidence or
procedure.
Motions on Limine:
It is not always necessary to wait until trial
to move for the exclusion of evidence.
Motions in limine are available to obtain
pretrial rulings on evidence that is
potentially harmful. A motion in limine
asks the judge to rule that the offending
evidence be found inadmissible and that I
not be offered or introduced in trial.
Effect of Motion in Limine:
Once granted, a motion in limine excludes
only is the evidence itself disallowed, but
counsel may not offer it or refer to it in a
question.
THE DECISION TO OBJECT:
In the heat of the trial, the decision on
whether to object to some or item of
evidence must usually be made literally on
a split-second basis. A question typically
lasts 10-20 seconds, and within that time
the counsel must recognize, formulate and
evaluate all possible objections. The
concentration required is enormous, there
is no opportunity for a letup; counsel must
pay exquisite attention to every question
and every answer, lest some devastating
bit of inadmissible evidence sneak its way
into record. There is no room for even the
slightest lapse.
THREE PHASES OF THE DECISION-MAKING
PROCESS
1. Recognize the objectionability of
the particular question, answer or
exhibit.
This is often the easiest step since
many questions simply sound wrong. It
is often possible to rely on certain key
words and phrases to jog the objection
reflex. Words such as “could”,
“might”, or “possible” commonly call
for speculation.
2. Formulate a valid objection.
Does the question truly call for
speculation or is it an acceptable lay
opinion? Is the out-of-court statement
inadmissible, hearsay or does it fall
within one of the many exceptions?
 3. Evaluate the tactical situation in
order to determine whether the
objection is worth taking.
DECIDING TO OBJECT:
The decision to object must be made in
reference to your theory of the case.
Always ask, will the exclusion of the
evidence contribute to my theory of
the case?
Unless the exclusion of the evidence
actually advances your theory, there is
proabably no need to raise an
objection.
Do not object to anything that doesn’t hurt
you.
Accommodating Harmful evidence:
Such can be accommodated through
explanation or argument. Indeed the
function of the theory of the case is
precisely to anticipate the use of harmful
information and to develop a story that
both accounts for and devalues it.
 Consider the case of a plaintiff in a
personal injury case being cross
examined on the issue of damages.
She testified on direct that the
injuries to her hand prevented her
from engaging in many activities
that she previously enjoyed,
including oil painting.
Q: You used to engage in oil painting and
now you can’t? Correct?
Q: You even considered becoming a
professional artist?
Q: You tried to sell your paintings in a
local gallery?
Q: But not a single person ever bought
one, right?
Q: You even gave up painting several times
out of frustration, didn’t you?
Q: In fact, before the accident, the gallery
owner told you that your paintings could
not even be displayed there any longer,
isn’t that right?
Q: The fact is, you were never really
good at painting at all, were you?
- The plaintiff’s inability to sell her
painting seems irrelevant to her
current injuries, since she did not
claim loss of income. The gallery
owner’s statement appears to be
hearsay. The purpose of the cross
was to damage the plaintiff.
Now the information can be
accommodated:
Plaintiff’s answer:
A: I never pained for money, it was just
my way of relaxing and enjoying myself.
A: Being in the gallery was nice, but the
real joy came from holding the brush and
creating the images.
In other words, the plaintiff’s theory of
damages can accommodate, perhaps
even benefit from, the nasty cross
examination. Counsel must therefore
choose: Is it better to object in the hope of
terminating the line of questioning or is
there more to be gained by weaving
through the cross examination into the
plaintiff’s own case?
MAKING AND MEETING OBJECTIONS
The standard method of raising an
objection:
 Objection, your Honor, relevance
 Objection, counsel is leading the
witness
 Your Honor, we object on the
ground of hearsay
 Objection, no foundation.
In any event, it is necessary to give the
precise basis for the objection to preserve
the issue for appeal. In most jurisdictions,
simply stating objection is understood only
to raise the ground of relevance. If such a
general objection is made and overruled,
all other possible grounds are waived for
appeal.
Speaking Objections, defined: an
extended disclosure on the bases for their
objections before allowing the judge to
rule or opposing counsel to speak.
Example: “Objection, your Honor,
that question calls for hearsay. The
witness’s personal notes constitute
of an out of court statement even
though the witness is present on
stand. They do not qualify as either
as business record or past
recollection recorded, and in any
event there has been no
foundation.”
It is often necessary to raise the same
objection to a number of question in a
row. Perhaps your initial objection was
sustained, by your opponent is persistent in
attempting to introduce the inadmissible
evidence through other means. Perhaps
your initial objection was overruled, and
you feel bound to protect your case.
Standing Objection: a single objection will
be considered to “stand” or apply to an
entire line of questioning without the need
for repeated interruptions. The problem
with standing objections is that it may be
difficult in the future to determine exactly
which questions and answers are covered.
Should a judge require that you proceed by
way of standing objection it is imperative
that the objection be articulated as clearly
as possible.
Timing
The general rule is that an objection must
be made as soon as it is apparent that it is
called for. On the other hand, an objection
may be premature if It interrupts an
incomplete question or if it anticipates a
testimony that may or may not be given.
To be timely, an objection must come
neither too early or too late.

Most judges do not like them, since the

judge is often ready to rule as soon as the
initial objection is made, speaking
objections are seen as time wasting and
laborious.

Repeated Objections: