Objections in Court - Use Them To Win Your Court Case - With Examples

Objections in Court - Use them to Win Your Court Case -with examples
Objections in Court - Use them to Win

by A Little TRUTH
31 Followers
Your Court Case -with examples

Do you like watching legal TV shows like “Law and Order” or “The Good Wife”? Are you
obsessed with the latest public trial on TV? Would you like to have a better perception
of what they’re objecting to and why?
Are you involved in a court case?

Whether you’re using a lawyer or
representing yourself pro se, it is
imperative that you get to know the
basics of objections in court. One
opportune objection can turn a lose into a
win. Proper objections on the record can
also make a strong case for appeal,
which helps keep the judge in line and
following the rules.
It’s no secret that attorneys and judges

can break the rules all day. They do so to
your detriment, unless you make timely
objections. Miss-statements and
presumptions can quickly become
evidence on record, unless you make
objections and make them effectively.
The Judge MUST Rule on Objections in
Objections that can be used whenever Court
someone is giving testimony - whether Source: NY Court System, Public Domain
during a deposition or other discovery, or

as a witness in a trial. Some objections also apply to motions, depositions,
interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admissions, subpoenas and other
1 of 19 Objections in Court - Use them to Win Your Court Case -with examples
papers, as well as the submission of evidence.
An objection has three purposes:
1. If sustained, the objection stops the other side or the judge from breaking the rules.
The main reason attorneys try to break the rules is to get something into the court
that would otherwise be inadmissible according to the rules of evidence. The judge
may try to break the rules if he has a favor to pay or a bias that he wants to foster.
Timely objections can ensure that no evidence gets into the court except that which
has been properly submitted to, and accepted by, the court ahead of time.
2. If overruled or ignored, the objection is on the record for consideration by the court
of appeals. The appellate court can only re-consider your objection if it is already
on the record in the lower court. A successful appeal is only possible if there are
errors on the record that hurt your case.
3. If you keep putting the judge’s errors, and overstepping of rules and law on the
record, he will start behaving. The judge knows that too many errors on the record
will make a strong case for appeal; and judges don’t like to be appealed.
Timing is critical. If you’re on your toes

with objections, you can prevent much
unwanted testimony from ever being
heard. As soon as you recognize that a
question requires an answer that would
overstep a rule, interrupt with: “Objection,
Hearsay” (or whatever the grounds are).
Get it out quick enough and the question
will never be answered. Once testimony is heard, the jury cannot
strike it from their memory.
If you hesitate and the objectionable Source: Galveston County Court System,
Texas, Public Domain
testimony gets heard, you can still get it
stricken from the record - but the jury cannot strike it from their memories.
You can object to anything that doesn't seem right - on the part of the other side, or
even what the judge says or does. You can even object to objections. Normally, one
should have the grounds and the rule to support the objection. However, if you don't
know the grounds at the time, you can still object stating that you can't think of the
grounds right now, but that “this just isn't right”. Common sense is the basis for common
law, and is (or was) the basis for the judicial system, and so it must be considered. Also,
there is a Maxim of Law that says “Equity regards substance rather than form.” This
means common sense prevails over procedure and the letter of the law. The idea is to
get the objection on the record before the right to object is considered waived.
In a moment of doubt, it is best to object.

A note of caution, however, you could be
seen as ‘crying wolf’ if you make too
many frivolous objections.
Be aware that trying to speak nicely

could nullify your objections. Statements
such as “Defendant wishes to make a
record of its objecting to plaintiff’s ...” or “I
want to object to ...” are ineffective. The
judge is not obligated to consider wishes Object to anything that doesn't seem right.
Source: Mark Anderson, private contract
or wants, and he might just ignore such
statements. But he must rule on
objections. “Defendant objects” or “I object” or “Objection, your Honor”, along with the
grounds for objection, is effective.
If the judge ignores your objection, you can make a verbal motion for the court to rule on
the objection. “Your Honor, I move the court to rule on my objection of ...” If he still
doesn’t rule, this puts it on the record that the judge did not simply fail to hear the
objection, but that he refused to rule on it. If you want to make this even more clear, you
can object to the court’s refusal to rule on the objection. The scriptural principle of “two
witnesses” applies here - if you’ve said something twice, it’s on the record. (Yes, the
judicial system does have a remote tie to the Bible, although it's quite twisted.) If you
object and the judge ignores it and you say nothing, your silence can be considered as
your acceptance of his implication that your objection was irrelevant.
Overruled or ignored objections at times need to be renewed. This assures they are on
the record for appeal. The objection can be renewed at each new question that is
objectionable based on the same grounds. Other times to renew are at the close of
each side’s presentation, and before the jury retires to deliberate. This makes a clear
record that the judge had more than one chance to rule. Again, the principle of two
witnesses comes into play. Failure to renew your objection may waive your right to raise
the issue on appeal.
If you’re using an attorney, you’ll want to

make sure he objects immediately to
everything that isn’t right and is
detrimental to your case. If you pay
attention, you may catch some things
that he doesn’t. If he misses an
objection, jab him. If he still doesn’t
speak up, you can stand up and raise the
objection yourself. “Objection, your
Honor. Council is Testifying.” (Or
Objections in Court
whatever the objection is.) Source: ibid, Anderson
Whether you’re using an attorney or not,

you’ll drastically increase your chances of winning if you get to know the following
common objections:
Asked and Answered

When examining a witness or deponent, a lawyer may try to overemphasize a point in
his favor by asking the same question a few times, but worded differently. Or he may be
trying to intimidate the witness (see Badgering below). But he only gets one answer to
the same or similar question - if you say “Objection, Asked and Answered.”
Badgering
This is powerful tactic that is commonly used, but it is not allowed if you object to it.
Badgering is defined as unnecessary verbal attack on the witness, or abusive, insulting
or intimidating questions. A Lawyer might try badger a witness in order to discredit him
or to scare him into giving more information than is required, or even false information.
Best Evidence Rule

The Best Evidence Rule can be a powerful tool when you apply it to written documents
that the other side tries to enter into evidence. You can demand to see and inspect an
original, not a copy, pursuant to rule 1002 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (most state
rules follow suit). If the court allows an exception because the original is said to be lost
or destroyed, you can demand to know the details of the circumstances, such as why,
when, where, how and by whom was the original destroyed or lost.
If the other side gives some excuse such

as “Oh, it’s in my clients safe at the
branch office in Montana”, you can renew
your objection and demand that either
the original be produced, or the copy be
excluded under the Best Evidence Rule.
In this case it would be good to read up
on the exceptions to the Best Evidence
Rule that are allowed in your State. DEMAND AN ORIGINAL
Source: Imperial Bank of India (Scan of
This rule also applies if a witness is original), Public Domain, via Wikimedia
Commons
asked to tell what a certain document
says. You can say “Objection, Best
Evidence Rule”. If you don’t say it in time, you can demand that the witness’s testimony
regarding the document be stricken from the record and the original document be
produced as evidence instead. If your opponent says that that is not possible, you can
demand that he answer as to who, when, where, how and why the original, or even a
copy is not available.
Also an attorney might ask a witness to read from a document. His purpose might be to
twist the meaning of the document or badger the witness. In any case “Objection, Best
Evidence Rule” or “Objection, document speaks for itself” will prevent it.
Competence
Anyone testifying to a fact must have first-hand knowledge of that fact. He must have
gained the knowledge by observing it with his own five senses of see, hear, touch, taste
or smell.
Competence can be questioned when a visually impaired person testifies as an

eyewitness, a hearing impaired person testifies to hearing something, or if the witness
was drunk at the time. Other conditions can also validate an objection for competency.
For example, if an event was supposedly witnessed on a moonlit night, but

meteorological records say there was no moon that night. A witness lacks competence
to see if there was no light.
The one testifying must also have sufficient mental faculties so as to be reliable and
competent. If you object as to Competence due to mental deficiencies, you may cause
yourself more work to enforce it, but at least your objection is on the record for potential
appeal if the testimony becomes pivotal to your case.
Counsel is Testifying
You can have fun with this one! Attorneys

will try to interject their own thoughts and
ideas into the case. But if he is speaking
from his own knowledge, he is “testifying”
as a witness. Attorneys are not allowed
to testify. If the opposing attorney starts
to make a statement based on his own
knowledge, you can stop him
mid-sentence. “Objection, council is
testifying!” The sooner the better if he’s
saying something you’d rather not have Have the lawyer sworn in if he is testifying.
on the record. Source: Department of Justice, Public
Domain
If he keeps on trying to testify, you can
have even more fun. You can move the court (verbal motion) to put him on the witness
stand and swear him in so you can cross-examine him as to the source of his
knowledge. If he does this, he can no longer act as attorney in the case, so he has no
choice but to shut up. Bar rules prohibit anyone from being a witness and an attorney in
the same case.
Another option would be to move the court to find that the attorney is testifying as a
witness for the opposition. If the court so rules, you move the court to remove him as
attorney, stating the pertinent bar rule.
Even more audacious is an attorney who

is testifying based on someone else’s
knowledge. In this case, not only

“Council is testifying” applies, but he
adds “Hearsay” to his problems (see
Hearsay below).
Note, the judge does usually allow

attorneys to make statements during
opening and closing “statements”;
however any statements must be based Lawyers can make statements only during
opening and closing.
on facts that have already been entered Source: Library of Congress, Public Domain
into evidence. If not, you can use
“Objection, Facts Not in Evidence” (see below).
Facts Not Established

This is a tricky way of getting un-established facts onto the record - by hiding
presumptions inside a question. For example, the question “When did you quit
drinking?” makes two presumptions: 1) that the witness used to drink, and 2) that the
witness has quit drinking. This question is valid only if it has already been established
that the witness used to drink and has quit. Otherwise it’s “Objection, Facts Not
Established.”
This can be critical. If this question is allowed to be answered, the drinking and the
quitting can become established fact by un-rebutted presumption.
If you object, the attorney will have to start over and ask “Did you drink in the past?” and
then “Did you quit drinking?” in order to get those facts established first. Only then, after
yeses to both, can he ask "When did you quit drinking?" But doing it this way, he might
not get the answers he wants.
Facts Not in Evidence
If an attorney has few if any facts or

witnesses on his side, he may not want
to let that stop him from winning his case.
He’ll sneak his “facts” into motions and
other submitted papers, hearings,
depositions and the trial. He knows he
has a weak case and tries to “prove” his

case by clever legal arguments
supported only by his own version of the
If it's not in evidence, it doesn't exist.
facts. Source: axisworks, CC BY-ND 2.0 via Flicker
But, with proper objections, the only facts

up for discussion in court are those that have already been properly introduced as
admissible evidence (including prior witness testimony). If an attorney starts to bring in
unsupported facts, you can stop him with “Objection, Facts Not in Evidence.” “Council is
Testifying” may also apply.
Hearsay
Hearsay is one of the many words that has been given a legal definition quite different
from the common meaning. Everyone knows the common meaning. It is simply a
statement that is being related or repeated by a second person.
Here is the legal definition of hearsay: An out-of-court statement offered to prove the
truth of what it, itself says.
Notice that there are two conditions to be

met in order for the Hearsay objection to
be valid:
1. The person who made the statement

is not currently in the court and
available for cross-examination. (A
statement made outside the court by
someone who is now in the court is
not hearsay because the person is
available for questioning.)
2. The statement is being used to

prove the truth of what it, itself says.
For example, an affidavit is normally
hearsay, because the affidavit is
being used to prove what the
affidavit says, and the writer (affiant)
is not in the court. However, an An affidavit is hearsay in court.

Source: Judicial Council of California, Public
affidavit is not hearsay if it is being Domain
used to prove something outside of
the statements in the affidavit. For example, an affidavit is not hearsay if it is being
used simply to prove that the affiant was alive on the date it was signed and
notarized.
Hearsay is not allowed as testimony in court. However, there are some exceptions. The
idea for the exceptions is that there are special circumstances that can substantially
increase the deemed reliability of an out-of-court statement, such that the need for
cross-examination of the one who made the statement can be waived. It has nothing to
do with the reliability or competence of the in-court witness who is relating the
statement.
The exceptions vary by jurisdiction, so you may need to check the local rules for
specifics. Here are three examples of exceptions to the Hearsay Rule:
Dying Declaration:
A statement made by a person who believes his death is imminent, is deemed to be

sufficiently reliable for a witness to relate in court, and not be considered hearsay. The
statement must be in regards to the cause of his death or perceived imminent death.
His statements regarding other matters are still hearsay.
Statement Against Interest:
The idea is that when people lie, they are

virtually always doing so for the benefit of
themselves. So if someone makes a
statement that is definitely against his
own interest, then he is most likely doing
so because he is being honest, and the
statement can be related by someone
else in court.
People lie for personal gain.
Exited Utterance: Source: ibid, Anderson
If someone is under great emotional
distress such as fear or shock, and they make a statement that is related to the cause of
the distress, it is deemed to be sufficiently reliable for someone else to relate the
statement as evidence in the court. A simple example would be someone jumping up
and screaming “It’s a snake!”
If these exceptions don’t seem logical, you’re not the only one who looks at it that way.
But those are the “rules”.
Leading
An attorney is not allowed to lead his own witness to answer in a certain way. For
example, “Isn’t it a fact that you were standing on the corner of Fifth and Main at the
time of the accident?” is a leading question. He would have to ask “Where were you in
January 1, 2013 at 12:15 PM?”
This does not apply when the attorney is questioning a witness for the other side (cross-
examination).
If an attorney leads his own witness, a loud and forceful properly timed, mid-sentence,
mid-word, “OBJECTION, LEADING” can also serve to break the train of thought and
frustrate the opposing attorney - forcing him to re-think and re-formulate his line of
questioning.
Outside the Pleadings

The pleadings include the Complaint,
Defendant's Answer with Affirmative
Defenses, and Plaintiff's reply to
Affirmative Defenses. Both sides have If it's not in the pleadings, it doesn't exist.
Source: University of Missouri, Public
opportunity to raise issues during the Domain
pleading process. But once the pleadings
are closed, they are sealed and can't be added to. Any issues not mentioned in the
pleadings are not up for discussion in the remainder of the case.
“Objection, Outside the Pleadings” can be a very powerful if you read the pleadings
carefully and look for what’s NOT there.
Prejudice
Prejudice has more than one legal definition, but in this case the common meaning is
being used, that of a pre-judging. It refers to the tendency of a judge or jury to lean
towards a (pre-trial) judgment. This prejudice can be caused by mentioning something
in court that has high emotional content, even though it may otherwise be considered
admissible evidence. Just the mentioning of it “prejudices” the court, due to the
emotional aspect.
Evidence can have both a prejudicial

effect (tendency to cause a pre-judging)
and a probative value (value as proof). If
the prejudicial effect is larger than the
probative value, then “Prejudice” is a
valid objection.
For example, bloody photographs of

mangled limbs may be considered
prejudicial if hospital bills and expert
testimony is available. However, if the Bloody pictures might prejudice the court.
Source: ibid, Congress
bloody pictures are the only evidence
available, the probative value would likely
outweigh the prejudicial effect.
Privilege
There are circumstances where a person cannot be required to testify. There are also
circumstances where a person can prevent another from testifying. These are called
“Privileges”. Any question that requires a witness or deponent to overstep a privilege
can be objected to.
With Spousal Privilege for example, a husband may (depending on the jurisdiction)
have the right to not testify against his wife. Also, even if he wanted to testify against
her, she may have the right to prevent him from doing so.
The Attorney-Client Privilege is more one sided, however. The privilege belongs to the
client, who can prevent an attorney from testifying against him. But, if the client chooses
to waive the privilege, the attorney can be required to testify - even if it damages the
attorney. (Of course, an attorney representing someone in the current case cannot
testify at all, since he can’t be attorney and witness in the same case, as mentioned in
“Council is Testifying” above.)
The various privileges arise from state law, federal law and even the Constitution. Most
privileges require there to be a reasonable expectation that the communication was
made in confidence and would not be spread to third parties. For example, a husband
and wife talking where others are in the same conversation would not qualify. Here are
some additional common privileges:
Fifth Amendment Privilege:
The right to not testify as to facts that might tend to incriminate yourself.
“No person shall … be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”
(Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment V)
This applies to criminal cases only, not

civil. But it does apply to potential
criminal cases - something that might
tend to incriminate you. Also, it applies
only to that which might tend to
incriminate you. You may still have to
testify to other matters.
It does not apply to any requirement to

testify as to other matters that would not
tend to incriminate you. The Fifth Amendment Privilege is well
known.
Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege: Source: ibid, Anderson
Generally, a licensed psychotherapist or a worker at a licensed mental treatment facility

can be prevented from testifying against the patient. There are several requirements
and exceptions that vary for different jurisdictions, so if this one is pertinent to your case,
you may want to do some research on it.
Priest-Penitent Privilege:
A member of clergy or minister of a religious organization can be prevented from

testifying against a member of the church or organization. The communication must
have been made in the nature of spiritual counsel or advice.
Accountant-Client Privilege:
An accountant can be prevented from testifying against his client. Depending on

jurisdiction, the accountant may need to be a certified public accountant (CPA) in order
for the privilege to qualify.
So if a witness is asked a question which seems to overstep a privilege, you can say
“Objection, Spousal Privilege” or whatever privilege applies.
Qualifications
Witness qualifications are abused regularly in the courts, and quite often it goes
unchecked. If you’re on your toes with Qualification objections, you can prevent much
unwanted testimony from ever being heard. There are two categories of qualification for
a witness:
Lay witness
Expert witness
A lay witness is not allowed to give opinions. He can only be asked testify based on his
own personal first-hand knowledge. He has to have perceived it through one of his five
senses. And if what he perceived was a communication of someone else, he can’t even
testify to that because it would be hearsay.
If a lay witness is asked “Did your

grandmother have the flu?” you could
say “Objection, the witness has not been
qualified as a medical expert” or simply
“Objection, Qualification.” He can’t
answer as a lay witness either, because
the flu virus is beyond detection of the
five senses.
An expert witness must be pre-qualified

as such by the court. This includes a Only a pre-qualified expert witness can give
opinions.
session, outside of the hearing of the Source: United States Mint, Public Domain
jury, in which both sides examine the credentials of the witness through questioning.
The expert will be qualified to give opinions only in his area of expertise.
Depending on the question, an expert witness can at different times, be testifying as a

lay witness or as an expert. When he’s testifying as an expert, he’s allowed to give his
opinions that are within his area of expertise. When he’s testifying as a lay witness, he is
has the same limitations as any other lay witness - personal first-hand knowledge only,
no opinions. The following examples will help illustrate.
If a civil engineering expert witness is asked for his opinion on some computer software,
you could say “Objection, outside of his Qualifications.” (Computer software is outside of
his expertise of civil engineering.)
If he is asked “What kind of noise did the building make as it fell?” … “Objection,
Qualification.” This is not a question for an expert witness - it doesn’t require an expert
opinion. It requires perception of one of the five senses, so he would be answering as a
Lay Witness. He can’t answer this if he wasn’t there himself to hear the noise.
Relevance
An attorney may try to bring in issues that have little or nothing to do with the case at
hand. His motive could be to divert attention from the important facts, confuse the
issues, add time that he gets paid for by the hour, or just to add some humor hoping he
will be better liked by the judge or jury.
If the testimony being requested would have no bearing on the issues in the case, you
can object for Relevance. Most likely the irrelevant testimony will not help your case.
Speculation
Often a witness is asked what he thinks

someone else was thinking or feeling. No
one can know what someone is thinking
or feeling, except the person doing the
thinking or feeling, and so such testimony
is not allowed. This also applies to
questions about attitudes and motives.
For example “What was Mr. Jones trying
to prove by pounding on the table?” Speculation is not allowed in court - if you

should bring on “Objection, Calls for object.
Source: Sean McGrath, CC-BY-2.0 via
Speculation” if you don’t want that Wikimedia Commons
testimony being herd.
Objections to Objections
Yes, you can even object to objections. “Speaking Objections” is a common one. If the
other side makes an objection, regardless of the grounds or validity, and then continues
speaking using the opportunity to interject his own thoughts and ideas into your line of
questioning, you can interrupt with “Objection, Speaking Objection” or as the defense
attorney in the Jody Arias trial said “Your Honor …. and can we not have speaking
objections?”
Examples
Here is an example line of questioning
that shows the power of objections in
court:
An attorney “Aty” is questioning his own

witness, trying to establish that Mrs.
Jones has lung cancer. The opposing
attorney “Opp” is properly and
successfully objecting. The following
Objection Examples
applies to a lay witness as well as an Source: ibid, Anderson
expert witness, since all these questions
require the witness to answer as a lay witness:
Aty: “Does Mrs. Jones have lung cancer?”

Opp: “Objection, Qualification - the witness has not been qualified as a
medical expert.”
(Lay witnesses cannot give opinions.)
Aty: “Do you know if Mrs. Jones has lung cancer?”

Opp: “Objection, Qualification - the question goes beyond personal
knowledge.”
(The lay witness could not have possibly perceived lung cancer through his
five senses.)
Aty: “Did Dr. Smith tell you that Mrs. Jones has lung cancer?”
Opp: “Objection, Hearsay”
(He would have to bring Dr. Smith to get the answer to that.)
Aty: “Have you seen a written diagnosis about Mrs. Jones having lung
cancer?”
Opp: “Objection, Best Evidence Rule.”
(The document speaks for itself better than a witness - produce it.)
Aty: “Was Mrs. Jones thinking that she had lung cancer?”
Opp: “Objection, Calls for Speculation.”
(The witness can’t know what someone else was thinking.)
Aty: “Isn’t it true that you heard Mrs. Jones coughing a lot?”
Opp: “Objection, Leading.”
(An attorney cannot lead his own witness.)
Aty: “Are you an inconsiderate bumbling idiot when it comes to the health of
Mrs. Jones?”
Opp: “Objection, Badgering.”
(This question is worded in such a way as to insult and intimidate.)
Aty: “C’mon, everyone knows that Mrs. Jones had lung cancer.”
Opp: “Objection, Council is Testifying.”
(The attorney would need to swear in and get on the witness stand himself.)
Aty: “Do you know what Mrs. Jones was doing to try to cure her lung
cancer?”
Opp: “Objection, Facts Not in Evidence.”
(This question presumes that Mrs. Jones had lung cancer, which is not on
record.)
Notice, the attorney never did get

anything on the record about lung
cancer. He objected right after (or maybe
even during) each question, before an
answer could be given. The witness

never said a word.
If you’re using an attorney, and he's not

making these objections in a timely
manner, you can poke and prod him to
do so. If he still doesn't, you may want to Proper objections COULD keep the witness
silent during a whole line of questioning.
consider getting a better lawyer. Source: ibid, Congress
Further Information and Research

For more information, including litigation options, real-life examples in-court and
resources for free on-line research, see the article I’ve Been Served with a Summons!
What Can I Do? It also contains a success story of my win against Charter One Bank -
using this information.
If you're involved in a serious court case, remember that litigation is like a game - being
played in a court. Words are bounced back and forth instead of a ball; the judge is the
referee. You can follow the loosing path of least resistance like most people do - or you
can use winning strategies. For example, you can choose to:
Answer the complaint - or instead respond with a flurry of motions, one of which
may get the case dismissed.
Answer the discovery - or instead respond with objections and/or statements such
that there ends up being little or no discovery.
Go to the trial - or instead establish a winning record that will get the case
dismissed, or at least bring on an acceptable pre-trial settlement.
One-on-one
If you would like one-on-one time with me regarding your court case, send an email to
yourwish@dr.com to set up a telephone appointment. The first 10 minute discussion of
your case is free. Then, if you choose, we can discuss court rules and strategies that
are pertinent to your case. I can provide information on creating and filing court
documents that will be accepted and taken seriously. To keep things simple, we can
focus only on the phase of litigation that you’re engaged in at the time - whether it’s
service of process, pleadings, motions, arbitration, mediation, discovery, summary
disposition, settlement, trial, judgment execution or appeal. There is an hourly fee for
the information sharing session; no advice, legal or otherwise, is given.
Using these strategies and tactics as a pro se litigant, I have won my own year-long
case with Charter One Bank. For details, click on the link above and scroll down to the
heading “My Win Experience in Court”.
Disclaimer: The above is not legal advice, but rather a summary of public rules for
informational purposes. If you desire legal advice, you may want to consider that,
according to the legal encyclopedia Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 7 Sections 2, 3, by
using an attorney you are declaring yourself to be among the "Infants and persons of
unsound mind". Anyone using any of the above ideas or concepts in litigation does so at
his own risk, and may wish to do his own research.
Using a Lawyer
Have you ever gone to court without a lawyer?
See results without voting
Are you resolved to always go to court without a lawyer?

If using a lawyer, would you use this information to keep him straight?
Last updated on August 9, 2013

Objections in Court - Use Them To Win Your Court Case - With Examples

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Objections in Court - Use Them To Win Your Court Case - With Examples

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Objections in Court - Use them to Win Your Court Case -with examples

Objections in Court - Use them to Win

Your Court Case -with examples

Are you involved in a court case?

It’s no secret that attorneys and judges

during a deposition or other discovery, or

papers, as well as the submission of evidence.

An objection has three purposes:

Timing is critical. If you’re on your toes

In a moment of doubt, it is best to object.

Be aware that trying to speak nicely

If you’re using an attorney, you’ll want to

Whether you’re using an attorney or not,

Asked and Answered

Best Evidence Rule

If the other side gives some excuse such

Competence can be questioned when a visually impaired person testifies as an

For example, if an event was supposedly witnessed on a moonlit night, but

You can have fun with this one! Attorneys

Even more audacious is an attorney who

knowledge. In this case, not only

Note, the judge does usually allow

Facts Not Established

Facts Not in Evidence

If an attorney has few if any facts or

has a weak case and tries to “prove” his

But, with proper objections, the only facts

Notice that there are two conditions to be

1. The person who made the statement

2. The statement is being used to

is not in the court. However, an An affidavit is hearsay in court.

A statement made by a person who believes his death is imminent, is deemed to be

Statement Against Interest:

The idea is that when people lie, they are

If someone is under great emotional

Outside the Pleadings

Evidence can have both a prejudicial

For example, bloody photographs of

Fifth Amendment Privilege:

This applies to criminal cases only, not

It does not apply to any requirement to

Generally, a licensed psychotherapist or a worker at a licensed mental treatment facility

A member of clergy or minister of a religious organization can be prevented from

have been made in the nature of spiritual counsel or advice.

An accountant can be prevented from testifying against his client. Depending on

If a lay witness is asked “Did your

An expert witness must be pre-qualified

Depending on the question, an expert witness can at different times, be testifying as a

Often a witness is asked what he thinks

to prove by pounding on the table?” Speculation is not allowed in court - if you

An attorney “Aty” is questioning his own

Aty: “Does Mrs. Jones have lung cancer?”

Aty: “Do you know if Mrs. Jones has lung cancer?”

Notice, the attorney never did get

answer could be given. The witness

If you’re using an attorney, and he's not

Further Information and Research

Are you resolved to always go to court without a lawyer?

Last updated on August 9, 2013

You might also like