Evidence
Objections
Evidentiary Objections
At every trial or hearing requiring the admission of evidence, attorneys have the duty to object to evidence that the rules of court deem inadmissible. Objections must be made in a timely fashion, as soon as the witness or opposing party attempts to improperly introduce evidence. An attorney who fails to immediately recognize and object to inadmissible evidence faces serious consequences: the evidence may be admitted for the judge or jury to consider, and should the case be appealed, the appellate court will allow it to stand as admitted. On the other hand, an attorney who makes frequent objections to proper, admissible evidence runs the risk of alienating the jury or angering the judge. A trial lawyer therefore must learn to quickly recognize and correctly object to inadmissible evidence.
Once an attorney objects, the judge must decide whether to sustain the objection and disallow the evidence, or overrule the objection and permit the evidence. To assist this decision, the attorney must generally tell the judge the legal basis for the objection.
| Objections to Questions | |
| Objection | Legal Basis |
| Calls for an irrelevant answer | The answer to the question would not make the existence of any consequential fact more or less probable. |
| Calls for an immaterial answer | The answer to the question would have no logical bearing on an issue in the case. |
| Is asked of an incompetent witness | The witness is disqualified by statute from testifying, owing to age, lack of knowledge, or mental illness. |
| Violates the best evidence rule | The original document, rather than testimony, contains the best evidence. |
| Calls for privileged communication | The information sought is PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, such as that between attorney and client, physician and patient, or husband and wife, and is barred from disclosure. |
| Calls for a conclusion | The question improperly asks the witness to reach a legal conclusion, which is a job reserved for the judge or jury. |
| Calls for an opinion. | Generally, only expert witnesses may render their opinions; lay witnesses must testify only regarding their observations. |
| Calls for a narrative answer. | Witnesses must respond concisely to individual questions, not give a long, rambling explanation. |
| Calls for hearsay | The answer would be inadmissible hearsay. |
| Is leading. | The questioning attorney may not frame a question in such a way that it suggests the answer. |
| Is repetitive (or has already been asked and answered) | The question has already been asked and answered. |
| Is beyond the scope | On cross-examination, questions normally may not address matters not covered on direct examination. |
| Assumes facts not in evidence | Part of the question assumes that certain facts are true, when such facts have not been admitted into evidence or their existence is in dispute. |
| Is confusing (or misleading or ambiguous or vague or unintelligible) | A question must be posed in a manner that is specific and clear enough that the witness reasonably knows what information the examiner seeks. |
| Calls for speculation | Questions that ask the witness to guess or speculate are improper. |
| Is compound | The question brings up two or more separate facts, and any simple answer would be unclear. |
| Is argumentative | The question is essentially an argument to the judge or jury; it elicits no new information but rather states a conclusion and asks the witness to agree with it. |
| Is an improper characterization | For example, the question calls the defendant a spoiled brat, greedy pig, or frenzied dog; characterization is something the jury or judge, not a witness or attorney, should infer. |
| Mistakes evidence (or misquotes the witness) | Misstating or distorting evidence, or misquoting a witness, is improper. |
| Is cumulative | When numerous witnesses testify to the same facts or numerous exhibits demonstrate the same things, without adding anything new, the evidence is objectionable. |
| Constitutes an improper impeachment | Rules surrounding the impeachment of a person's character or credibility are highly technical. For example, evidence of a prior inconsistent statement made by a witness may be used only if the statement is materially inconsistent and is offered in the proper context. |
| Violates the parol evidence rule | The PAROL EVIDENCE rule bars evidence of oral, or verbal, modifications or contradictions of a written contract that is complete and clear on its face. |
| Is unresponsive (or volunteered) | An answer that does not directly respond to a question is objectionable as unresponsive; an answer that goes beyond what is necessary to answer the question is objectionable as volunteered. Only the attorney who called the witness may object on these grounds. |
Objections to Answers
Is irrelevant
Is immaterial
Is privileged
Is a conclusion
Is improper opinion
Is hearsay
Is narrative
Is improper characterization
| Objections to Exhibits | |
| Objection | Legal Basis |
| Lacks proper foundation (or lacks foundation, or has no foundation) | Before exhibits can be admitted into evidence, attorneys must establish the necessary foundation, or the facts that indicate the exhibit is what it purports to be. For a photograph of a crime scene, this might include calling the person who took the picture as a witness and asking whether she was at the crime scene, had a camera, and took a picture, and whether the exhibit is that picture. |
| Lacks authentication | Writings and conversations must be authenticated, or shown to have been executed by a party or that party's agent. For example, before testifying about a telephone conversation, a witness must demonstrate his knowledge of who was speaking on the other end of the telephone. |
| Is prejudicial | The exhibit's prejudicial effect outweighs its PROBATIVE value. This objection is often raised with photo exhibits. A color photo of a murder victim may so prejudice the jury, without adding information helpful to determining the murderer, that the judge may disallow the photo as evidence. |
| Contains inadmissible matter | Exhibits in the forms of charts, diagrams, and maps must not disclose otherwise inadmissible material to the jury. For example, in most jurisdictions, evidence that a defendant in a personal injury case has insurance that may pay for the plaintiff's damages is inadmissible. A chart, shown to the jury, that conveys the name of the defendant's insurance company is improper and objectionable. |
| Is irrelevant | |
| Is immaterial | |
| Contains hearsay | |
Additional topics
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationFree Legal Encyclopedia: Estate for years to Ex proprio motu (ex mero motu)Evidence - Witnesses, Expert Witnesses, Hearsay, Objections, Nonevidentiary Objections, Authentication And Identification, Polygraph Tests