Objection (United States law)

Last updated December 12, 2023

In the law of the United States of America, an objection is a formal protest raised in court during a trial to disallow a witness's testimony or other evidence in violation of the rules of evidence or other procedural law. An objection is typically raised after the opposing party asks a question of the witness, but before the witness can answer, or when the opposing party is about to enter something into evidence. The judge then makes a ruling on whether the objection is "sustained" (the judge agrees with the objection and disallows the question, testimony, or evidence) or "overruled" (the judge disagrees with the objection and allows the question, testimony, or evidence). An attorney may choose to "rephrase" a question that has been objected to, so long as the judge permits it. Lawyers should make an objection before there is an answer to the question. Research finds that frequent objections by attorneys do not alienate jurors.^[1]

Objections in general

An attorney may also raise an objection against a judge's ruling, to preserve the right to appeal that ruling. Under certain circumstances, a court may need to hold some kind of pretrial hearing and make evidentiary rulings to resolve important issues like personal jurisdiction, or whether to impose sanctions for extreme misconduct by parties or counsel. As with trials, a party or their counsel normally raises objections to evidence presented at the hearing in order to ask the court to disregard impermissible evidence or argument, as well as to preserve such objections as a basis for interlocutory or final appeals from such rulings.

Objections are also commonly used in depositions during the discovery process to preserve the right to exclude testimony from being considered as evidence in support of, or in opposition to, a later motion, such as a motion for summary judgment.

Exceptions

Historically, at trial, an attorney had to promptly take an "exception" (by saying "I except" followed by a reason) immediately after an objection was overruled in order to preserve it for appeal, or else the objection was permanently waived. In addition, at the end of the trial, the attorney had to submit a written "bill of exceptions" that listed all exceptions he intended to appeal on—which the judge then signed and sealed, making it part of the record to be reviewed on appeal.^[2]

The bill of exceptions was a relic of the early English practice in which parties submitted their pleadings orally (by reciting their allegations and pleas orally in open court) and the court ruled on those pleadings orally, and the court clerk recorded what had transpired in summary form in the written minutes of the court.^[3] Early on, English trial courts developed the habit of evading appellate review of their rulings by having their clerks not record certain rulings which overruled or disallowed various issues raised by the parties.^[3] Parliament solved that problem with the 31st chapter of the Statute of Westminster 1285, which forced trial court judges to apply their court's seal to a party's written bill of exceptions and in turn allowed the bill to become part of the appellate record.^[3]

After modern American courts began to use court reporters to create accurate, comprehensive, and verbatim written transcripts of their proceedings, lawyers and judges came to recognize that exceptions were unnecessary because the objection itself and the context of the surrounding record are all the appellate court really needs to resolve a disputed issue. Starting in the 1930s, exceptions were abolished in the federal courts ^[4] and in many state courts as well. For example, California technically did not abolish exceptions, but merely rendered them superfluous by simply treating just about every ruling of the trial court as automatically excepted to.^[5] Thus, in nearly all U.S. courts, it is now sufficient that the objection was clearly made on the record.^{[ citation needed ]}

Continuing objection

A continuing objection is an objection an attorney makes to a series of questions about a related point. A continuing objection may be made, in the discretion of the court, to preserve an issue for appeal without distracting the factfinder (whether jury or judge) with an objection to every question. A continuing objection is made where the objection itself is overruled, but the trial judge permits a silent continuing objection to that point so that there are fewer interruptions. An example of this is when a lawyer could be held negligent for not objecting to a particular line of questioning, yet has had previous objections overruled.

List of objections

Proper reasons for objecting to a question asked to a witness include:

Ambiguous, confusing, misleading, vague, unintelligible: the question is not clear and precise enough for the witness to properly answer.
Arguing the law: counsel is instructing the jury on the law.
Argumentative : the question makes an argument rather than asking a question.
Asked and answered: when the same attorney continues to ask the same question and they have already received an answer. Usually seen after direct examination, but not always.
Asking a question unrelated to an intelligent exercise of a peremptory challenge or challenge for cause: if opposing counsel asks such a question during voir dire (i.e. the jury selection process).
Asks the jury to prejudge the evidence: the jury cannot promise to vote a certain way, even if certain facts are proved.
Assumes facts not in evidence: the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown. In its strictest form, this objection presents obvious bootstrapping problems, since examination of a witness must start somewhere. To get around that, courts usually tolerate a few broad questions at the start of examination, but expect counsel to use the answers thus elicited as a foundation for examination on more specific and material matters.
Badgering: counsel is antagonizing the witness to provoke a response, either by asking questions without giving the witness an opportunity to answer or by openly mocking the witness.
Best evidence rule : requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available; for example, rather than asking a witness about the contents of a document, the actual document should be entered into evidence. A full original document should be introduced into evidence instead of a copy, but judges often allow copies if there is no dispute about authenticity. Some documents are exempt from hearsay rules of evidence.^[6]
Beyond the scope: a question asked during cross-examination must be within the scope of direct, and so on.
Calls for a conclusion : the question asks for an opinion rather than facts.
Calls for speculation: the question asks the witness to guess the answer rather than to rely on known facts.
Compound question : multiple questions asked together.
Counsel is testifying: a lawyer is making an unsworn statement as to a fact without separate evidence.
Foundation: the question relates to matters of which the witness's personal knowledge has not been established.
Hearsay : An out of court statement used to prove the fact that the statement is being offered for. However, there are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in most legal systems.^[6]
Incompetent: the witness is not qualified to answer the question.
Inflammatory: the question is intended to cause prejudice.
Irrelevant or immaterial : the question is not about the issues in the trial.
Leading question (direct examination only): the question suggests the answer to the witness. Leading questions are permitted if the attorney conducting the examination has received permission to treat the witness as a hostile witness. Leading questions are also permitted on cross-examination, as witnesses called by the opposing party are presumed hostile.
Misstates evidence / misquotes witness / improper characterization of evidence: this objection is often overruled, but can be used to signal a problem to witness, judge and jury.^[7]
Narrative: the question asks the witness to relate a story rather than state specific facts. This objection is not always proper even when a question invites a narrative response, as narrative testimony may be required or preferred due to the circumstances of the case.
Privilege : the witness may be protected by law from answering the question.

A few of the foregoing objections may also apply to the witness's response, particularly hearsay, privilege, and relevance. An objection to form—to the wording of a question rather than its subject matter—is not itself a distinct objection reason, but a category that includes ambiguity, leading, compounding and others. Court rules vary as to whether an "objection to form," by itself, preserves the objection on the record or requires further specification.^[8]

Proper reasons for objecting to material evidence include:

Best evidence rule or hearsay evidence: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available. However, some documents are self-authenticating under Rule 902, such as (1) domestic public documents under seal, (2) domestic public documents not under seal, but bearing a signature of a public officer, (3) foreign public documents, (4) certified copies of public records, (5) official publications, (6) newspapers and periodicals, (7) trade inscriptions and the like, (8) acknowledged documents (i.e., by a notary public), (9) commercial paper and related documents, (10) presumptions under Acts of Congress, (11) certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity, (12) certified foreign records of regularly conducted activity.^[6]
Fruit of the poisonous tree : the evidence was obtained illegally, or the investigative methods leading to its discovery were illegal. Can be circumvented; see inevitable discovery.
Incomplete: opposing party only introducing part of the writing (conversation/act/declaration), taken out of context. Under the evidence rule providing for completeness, other parties can move to introduce additional parts.^[9] If any documents are presented for review, the judge and other party are entitled to a complete copy, not a partial copy, of the document. When a witness is presented with a surprise document, he should be able to take time to study it before he can answer any questions.
Lack of foundation : the evidence lacks testimony as to its authenticity or source.
More prejudicial than probative: Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, a judge has the discretion to exclude evidence if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury."

Proper reasons for objecting to a witness's answer include, but are not limited to:

Narrative: the witness is relating a story in response to a question that does not call for one. Not all witnesses' answers are susceptible to this objection, as questions can and often do call for a narrative response, especially on direct examination.
Non-responsive: the witness's response constitutes an answer to a question other than the one that was asked, or no answer at all.
Nothing pending: the witness continues to speak on matters irrelevant to the question. For example, an attorney who asks, "Did your mother call?" and gets the answer, "Yes, she called at 3:00," can object to the latter part. Attorneys can use this objection selectively (to avoid annoying the court) when a witness adds out-of-order remarks to answers.

Speaking objection

An objection that goes beyond stating a proper objection reason, as listed above, is known as a speaking objection. Courts normally discourage speaking objections and may sanction them when they impede legal process, whether by delaying the proceedings or by adding non-evidentiary material to the record. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require objections during a deposition to be stated "concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner." Speaking objections nonetheless occur in practice and are sometimes used, with caution, to communicate the nature of the objection to a party without a legal background.^[10]

Related Research Articles

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A deposition in the law of the United States, or examination for discovery in the law of Canada, involves the taking of sworn, out-of-court oral testimony of a witness that may be reduced to a written transcript for later use in court or for discovery purposes. Depositions are commonly used in litigation in the United States and Canada. They are almost always conducted outside court by the lawyers themselves, with no judge present to supervise the examination.

Testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter.

Hearsay is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

In law, a summary judgment, also referred to as judgment as a matter of law or summary disposition, is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case. The formulation of the summary judgment standard is stated in somewhat different ways by courts in different jurisdictions. In the United States, the presiding judge generally must find there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In England and Wales, the court rules for a party without a full trial when "the claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial."

Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a phase of pretrial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from other parties by means of methods of discovery such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from nonparties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery. Conversely, a party or nonparty resisting discovery can seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion for a protective order.

Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Sixth Amendment. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, which provides criminal defendants with the right to confront witnesses against them, did not bar the use of one-way closed-circuit television to present testimony by an alleged child sex abuse victim.

First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts.

In the American legal system, argumentative is an evidentiary objection raised in response to a question which prompts a witness to draw inferences from facts of the case.

Hearsay, in a legal forum, is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court for the truth of what was asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971), was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court to determine and delineate several questions concerning administrative procedure in Social Security disability cases. Among the questions considered was the propriety of using physicians' written reports generated from medical examinations of a disability claimant, and whether these could constitute "substantial evidence" supportive of finding nondisability under the Social Security Act.

Ex parte Fisk, 113 U.S. 713 (1885), was a case in which Francis B. Fogg brought suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Fisk to recover the sum of $63,250 on the allegation of false and fraudulent representations made by Fisk in the sale of certain mining stocks. Fisk was held in contempt when he declined to answer questions his attorney believed violated the Fifth Amendment.

The Virginia Circuit Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Circuit Courts have jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal cases. For civil cases, the courts have authority to try cases with an amount in controversy of more than $4,500 and have exclusive original jurisdiction over claims for more than $25,000. In criminal matters, the Circuit Courts are the trial courts for all felony charges and for misdemeanors originally charged there. The Circuit Courts also have appellate jurisdiction for any case from the Virginia General District Courts claiming more than $50, which are tried de novo in the Circuit Courts.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. While the court ruled that the then-common practice of submitting these reports without testimony was unconstitutional, it also held that so called "notice-and-demand" statutes are constitutional. A state would not violate the Constitution through a "notice-and-demand" statute by both putting the defendant on notice that the prosecution would submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the scientist and also giving the defendant sufficient time to raise an objection.

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on two issues of constitutional criminal procedure. Glasser was the first Supreme Court decision to hold that the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment required the reversal of a criminal defendant's conviction if his lawyer's representation of him was limited by a conflict of interest.

Beech Aircraft Corporation v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed a longstanding conflict among the Federal Courts of Appeals over whether Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C), which provides an exception to the hearsay rule for public investigatory reports containing "factual findings," extends to conclusions and opinions contained in such reports. The court also considered whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit, on cross-examination, testimony intended to provide a more complete picture of a document about which the witness had testified on direct.

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state may not enforce its rules of evidence, such as rules excluding hearsay, in a fashion that disallows a criminal defendant from presenting reliable exculpatory evidence and thus denies the defendant a fair trial.

Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that clarified the relationship of the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to other constitutional rights in criminal procedure. In this case, evidence against the defendant was probably seized illegally, violating the Fourth Amendment, but he lost the chance to argue that point due to his lawyer's ineffectiveness. The prosecution argued that the defendant's attempt to make a Sixth Amendment argument via a habeas corpus petition was really a way to sneak his Fourth Amendment argument in through the back door. The Court unanimously disagreed, and held that the Fourth Amendment issue and the Sixth Amendment issue represented different constitutional values, and had different requirements for prevailing in court, and therefore were to be treated separately by rules of procedure. Therefore, the habeas corpus petition could go forward. In its opinion, the Court also gave guidance on how to apply its decisions in Stone v. Powell and Strickland v. Washington.

References

↑ Kellermann, Kathy (2021). "Do frequent objections by attorneys alienate jurors?". Online Jury Research Update. Retrieved August 22, 2023.
↑ Raymond, John (1846). The Bill of Exceptions; Being a Short Account of Its Origin and Nature. London: S. Sweet. p. 34. Retrieved 8 April 2020.
1 2 3 Raymond, John (1846). The Bill of Exceptions; Being a Short Account of Its Origin and Nature. London: S. Sweet. pp. 1–12. Retrieved 8 April 2020.
↑ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 46, promulgated in 1938 as part of the original version of the FRCP, states that "A formal exception to a ruling or order is unnecessary." Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a) states that once "the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal."
↑ See California Code of Civil Procedure Section 647.
1 2 3 Federal Rules of Evidence, December 1st 2009 "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-10-08. Retrieved 2010-09-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
↑ "Essential Objections Checklist".
↑ Malone, David M.; Hoffman, Peter T. (2012). The Effective Deposition. p. 359.
↑ "Deposition Instructions". Archived from the original on August 27, 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
↑ Ranney, Joseph A. (2017). Deposition objections.

External links

"Objection" as defined in The People's Law Dictionary at Law.com
"Objection" as defined in West's Encyclopedia of American Law at Answers.com
"Trial Objections Cheat Sheet California"

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Kellermann, Kathy (2021). "Do frequent objections by attorneys alienate jurors?". Online Jury Research Update. Retrieved August 22, 2023.

[Raymond_Page_34-2] Raymond, John (1846). The Bill of Exceptions; Being a Short Account of Its Origin and Nature. London: S. Sweet. p. 34. Retrieved 8 April 2020.

[Raymond_Pages_1-12-3] 1 2 3 Raymond, John (1846). The Bill of Exceptions; Being a Short Account of Its Origin and Nature. London: S. Sweet. pp. 1–12. Retrieved 8 April 2020.

[4] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 46, promulgated in 1938 as part of the original version of the FRCP, states that "A formal exception to a ruling or order is unnecessary." Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a) states that once "the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal."

[5] See California Code of Civil Procedure Section 647.

[fed_rules-6] 1 2 3 Federal Rules of Evidence, December 1st 2009 "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-10-08. Retrieved 2010-09-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)

[7] "Essential Objections Checklist".

[8] Malone, David M.; Hoffman, Peter T. (2012). The Effective Deposition. p. 359.

[emory_college-9] "Deposition Instructions". Archived from the original on August 27, 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)

[10] Ranney, Joseph A. (2017). Deposition objections.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]