Objection Your Honor!

Image Source

Long before I even thought of going to law school, I loved watching dramatic courtroom scenes on TV and in the movies. There is something addictively entertaining about watching a tear-jerking closing statement, or outrageous witness testimony that shocks the attorney. The majority of the TV-watching public has never actually seen a trial in person, so I think that part of the draw is the fascination with the unknown. Although it tends to be way over-dramatized when compared to real life, most TV shows do a pretty good job of demonstrating courtroom procedure in a way that the general public can understand. However, one thing that is rarely explained are the objections. Everyone is familiar with the phrases "Objection!" "Sustained," and "Overruled," but most people without a legal background don't understand the grounds for the objections. There is a reason for this. The Federal Rules of Evidence (which most state courts also follow) are RIDICULOUSLY complicated, technical, and otherwise hard to follow. This year, I've had the pleasure of taking Evidence. I have found that writing articles about legal concepts helps me study and entertains some of my readers. Therefore, after hours of going through the rules with a fine-tooth comb, I decided to explain in an easier-to-understand way the meaning behind some of the most common objections you hear on TV.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is in no way to be construed as legal advice. 

1. Objection! Irrelevant!

This is one of the easiest objections to understand, but according to attorneys I know it's one of the hardest to win. The rules require that any evidence offered to the jury be related to the main thing you're trying to prove in the case. (whether someone is guilty or innocent, whether someone was negligent, etc.) This means that if the jury believes whatever piece of evidence you give them, it has to make the main thing more or less probable. (even if only slightly) The problem, is that the argument can be easily be made that almost anything can be considered "relevant," even if it's only very divergently related to the main issue. Therefore, it's hard to get this one sustained. I think a lot of attorneys try this one because it's the easiest one to remember. You will probably have better luck keeping something out by basing your objection on some other grounds.

Image Source

2. Objection! More prejudicial than probative!

You have a better chance of keeping evidence out by using this objection. In layman's terms, this means that the particular testimony or evidence has a disproportionately better chance of making the jury not like your client than it does of proving any aspect of the main case. The only caveat with this one is that it's totally up to the judge on whether or not he feels the potential unfair bias to your client outweighs the helpfulness of this evidence to the jury in determining the verdict. Too much judicial discretion = unpredictable outcome.

Image Source

3. Objection! Leading the Witness!

This one is never explained in the movies, but you hear it all the time. To understand it, you first have to understand how the questioning works in the first place. If you're the one to call a witness, then you are the first person to ask that witness questions. This is called direct examination. After you're done, the other side gets to cross-examine your witness, meaning they get a chance to ask your witness questions, but they can only ask about things that came up during your direct examination. After the other side is done, you get another chance to re-direct your witness, where you can ask them questions relating to things that came up during cross, (usually to try and fix any damage the other attorney did) and finally, the other side gets re-cross, or the opportunity to ask further questions about things that came up during re-direct. One of the rules of direct is that you're generally not allowed to ask leading questions. A leading question is a question that strongly suggests how you want the witness to answer. An example of a leading questions is, "Didn't you want to kill your wife?" Most of the time, you can't ask these questions on direct, so if you try it, the other side will probably win if they object. On the other hand, you are allowed to ask leading questions on cross examination. 

Image Source

4. Objection! Argumentative!

This one's name is kind of misleading. Before law school, I always thought it meant that the attorney was being combative or quarrelsome with the witness. But that's not it, exactly. What it means is that instead of using the witness to elicit information, the attorney is essentially manipulating the witness into making his own argument for him in front of the jury. The attorney may  ask questions that consist of nothing but asking the witness to agree with his own interpretation of the evidence, thereby using the witness as a tool to lead him to his ultimate legal conclusion with the jury as his audience. Allow me to illustrate:

Example: (Imagine that this is a Car Accident case.) 

Attorney: Is it true that you were driving 10 miles over the speed limit when you rear-ended Mr. Smith's vehicle?

Witness: Yes

Attorney: Did you know that it's against the law to drive over the speed limit?

Witness: Yes.

Attorney: Therefore, do you agree that by driving 10 miles over the speed limit, you were being negligent?

Opposing Counsel: OBJECTION! Argumentative!

Judge: Sustained.

Since negligence is a legal term of art, the attorney can't reasonably ask the witness to answer the question, or in other words, make his argument through the witness.

Image Source

5. Objection! Misleading the Jury!

An attorney misleads the jury if he ask a question that assumes some fact that hasn't been introduced to the jury yet. Imagine a man is on trial for murdering his wife. The prosecutor then asks him, "When was the last time you beat your wife?" Unless there has been evidence already presented to the jury about the man allegedly beating his wife, this qualifies as misleading the jury. It forces the jury to assume that the defendant beats his wife when they have no other reason to believe such. These are usually the "trick" questions that force the witness to concede to some fact by answering them. Unfortunately, even if you win your objection, what sucks is that the damage is probably already done. It's hard to "un-ring a bell." Once the jury hears it, whether it is admissible evidence or not, it's probably going to stay in their minds.

Image Source

6. Objection! Hearsay!

Simply put, "hearsay" refers to the attempt to present as evidence a statement that was said out of court for the purposes of representing the truth of the matter therein.

So what does that mean?

Consider that Walter, a witness, testifies in a criminal trial, "Bob told me that Dale (the defendant) hit his wife last Tuesday." It's necessary to assume here that we care whether or not what Bob told Walter is true. In other words, is the statement being admitted to prove whether or not Dale actually hit his wife last Tuesday? If it is, then it is hearsay.

On the other hand, if the statement is only trying to prove that Bob told Walter that Dale beat his wife last Tuesday, then it is NOT hearsay.

The reasoning behind the rule against is hearsay is this: If we are using this statement to try and prove whether or not Dale actually hit his wife, it's not fair, because Bob isn't in court, therefore Dale doesn't have a chance to put Bob on the stand and cross-examine him.

The general rule is that hearsay isn't allowed, but there are about a MILLION exceptions to the rule (too boring to talk about here) that allow it anyway. Despite all of these exceptions, your best bet as an attorney is probably to make the objection anyway, and hope that the other lawyer can't recall the particular exception to make his argument for why the hearsay testimony should be allowed.

Image Source