Objections
Relevance
A relevance objection is based on the argument that the evidence is not relevant to the case. Evidence is only considered relevant if it has some value in proving a significant matter. Relevance objections seek to prevent jurors from being distracted or influenced by information that does not pertain to the legal matter at hand.
According to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court may exclude evidence, even if relevant, if its probative value is outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice or other harms to the jury process. Accordingly, the judge must weigh these considerations when ruling on a relevance objection.
Relevance is often a particularly contentious area of objections. The outcome varies widely based on the circumstances, and the judge’s decision is often highly subjective.
According to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court may exclude evidence, even if relevant, if its probative value is outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice or other harms to the jury process. Accordingly, the judge must weigh these considerations when ruling on a relevance objection.
Relevance is often a particularly contentious area of objections. The outcome varies widely based on the circumstances, and the judge’s decision is often highly subjective.
Leading Question
This objection is raised when an attorney asks a question that suggests the desired answer or puts words in the witness’s mouth. Leading questions are prohibited during direct examination, although exceptions are made for background information. However, leading questions are allowed on cross-examination and for hostile witnesses or adverse parties.
Compound Question
Compound objections are raised when a question contains multiple inquiries, making it difficult to provide a clear and accurate response. The general remedy is to break up the compound question into multiple questions, so the witness understands what they are responding to.
Argumentative
A question can be objected to as being argumentative when it does not seek new information, but instead seeks to have the witness agree with an inference or conclusion. This objection can also be raised as “badgering the witness.”
Asked and answered
This objection is raised when an attorney asks a question that has already been asked and sufficiently answered. The goal of the objection is to prevent attorneys from asking the same question in different ways to elicit a different response.
Vague
When a question is unclear or lacks specificity, you can object on the grounds of it being vague. A vague question makes it difficult for the witness to provide a meaningful answer. Sometimes this objection is phrased as “ambiguous” or “vague and ambiguous.”
Speculation
“Calls for speculation” is an appropriate objection to a question that requires the witness to guess or speculate on an issue where they do not possess direct knowledge. Attorneys can also raise the “speculation” objection if a witness is speculating with their testimony, regardless of the question they are responding to.
Hearsay
Hearsay is an objection to evidence that relies on secondhand information—such as what the witness heard someone else say—rather than firsthand knowledge. The jury cannot assess the credibility of the individual making the statement and there is no chance for cross-examination, so this evidence is typically prohibited.
However, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as excited utterances and admissions against interest.
However, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as excited utterances and admissions against interest.
Privilege
You can object to any question that seeks information protected by a form of privilege, such as the attorney-client privilege. Since maintaining privilege is one of the ethical duties of a lawyer, these objections are usually sustained.
Violation of best evidence rule
The best evidence rule applies when a party seeks to admit a writing, recording, or photograph into evidence. The rule provides that unless the original is unobtainable, the party must use the original item. You can object to evidence that doesn’t follow the best evidence rule.
Unfair/prejudicial
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.
Foundation
A question or response can be objectionable if a person failed to explain the background circumstances of how s/he knows the information s/he is testifying about, or is 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.
Non-responsive
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.
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.
