Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 70 views

    Objections During Direct of Opposing Lawyer On Their Witness Objections During Offer of Evidence

    Uploaded by

    Mitchi Barranco
    This document provides an overview of common objections that may be raised during direct examination or cross-examination of witnesses in a trial. It lists objections related to the format of questions, such as relevance, foundation, and leading questions. It also discusses objections to evidence offered, such as hearsay, failure to authenticate, and the best evidence rule. The document notes that not every objectionable statement needs an objection and provides guidance on when objections are appropriate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Objections During Direct of Opposing Lawyer On Their Witness Objections During Offer of Evidence

    Uploaded by

    Mitchi Barranco
    70 views1 page
    This document provides an overview of common objections that may be raised during direct examination or cross-examination of witnesses in a trial. It lists objections related to the format of questions, such as relevance, foundation, and leading questions. It also discusses objections to evidence offered, such as hearsay, failure to authenticate, and the best evidence rule. The document notes that not every objectionable statement needs an objection and provides guidance on when objections are appropriate.

    Original Description:

    FORMS

    Original Title

    Objections

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document provides an overview of common objections that may be raised during direct examination or cross-examination of witnesses in a trial. It lists objections related to the format of questions, such as relevance, foundation, and leading questions. It also discusses objections to evidence offered, such as hearsay, failure to authenticate, and the best evidence rule. The document notes that not every objectionable statement needs an objection and provides guidance on when objections are appropriate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    70 views1 page

    Objections During Direct of Opposing Lawyer On Their Witness Objections During Offer of Evidence

    Uploaded by

    Mitchi Barranco
    This document provides an overview of common objections that may be raised during direct examination or cross-examination of witnesses in a trial. It lists objections related to the format of questions, such as relevance, foundation, and leading questions. It also discusses objections to evidence offered, such as hearsay, failure to authenticate, and the best evidence rule. The document notes that not every objectionable statement needs an objection and provides guidance on when objections are appropriate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Objections during Direct of Opposing Lawyer on their Witness Objections during Offer of Evidence

     Objection to the format of the question of the lawyer  Best Evidence Rule
    ◦ Relevance  Parol Evidence Rule
    ◦ Foundation  Failure to Authenticate
    ◦ Leading Question  Relevance
    ◦ Hearsay
    ◦ Calls for a Narrative Response
    ◦ Outside the Scope of Re-Direct Objections to Evidence
    ◦ Calls for Speculation (guess)
    ◦ Calls for Opinion (personal statement and not relevant) DO I NEED TO OBJECT IN EVERY OBJECTIONABLE STATEMENT?
    ▪ Except
     Expert Witness Objections
     Relevance – any evidence that tends to prove and disprove a fact
     Ordinary witness pertaining to
    in issue
    ◦ identity of a person about whom he has
     Foundation – the attorney has not laid down the proper
    adequate knowledge
    foundation of this question
    ◦ handwriting with sufficient familiarity
    ◦ who, what, when, where, how – that indicates that the
    ◦ mental sanity
    witness can answer the question from the witness personal
    ◦ impressions of the emotion, behavior,
    knowledge
    condition or appearance of a person  Personal Knowledge – witness has actually perceived what has
    ◦ Calls for Witness to Extrapolate
    occurred
    ◦ Character Evidence ◦ based on senses of the witness
    ▪ Character of Accused  Hearsay – an out of court statement offered for the truth of that
     prove moral character but must be pertinent to statement
    the moral trait involved in the offense charged ◦ Exceptions
    ▪ Character of Victim  Leading Questions – questions that suggest an answer. Not
     Rape Shield Rule allowed in direct.
    ◦ Past sexual conduct ◦ If the question is answerable by yes or no.
    ◦ Opinion of his/her reputation  Argumentative – arguing with the answer of the witness
    ◦ Calls for Admission of Similar Acts as Evidence - Inter alios  Ask and answered – used when the answer of the witness is
    acta – Second Branch (previous acts) damaging and has already been answered previously
    ▪ except if used to prove a specific intent or knowledge,  Compound questions
    identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage  Non-responsive- the witness does not answer the question given
     Objection on the answer of the witness by the lawyer
    ◦ Witness is narrating  Outside the Scope of Re-direct – stay within the bounds of what
    ◦ Non responsive was asked during cross examination
     Outside the Scope of Re-cross – stay within the bounds of what
    Objections during Cross of Opposing Lawyer on our Witness was asked during re-direct
     Objection to the format of the question  Calls for speculation – asks for an answer not within the
    ◦ Relevance perception of the witness
    ◦ Foundation  Witness is extrapolating – when witness is testifying on facts
    ◦ Argumentative outside the “facts”
    ◦ Lack of Personal Knowledge  Character evidence
    ◦ Compound Questions  Inter Alios Acta – Second Branch
    ◦ Outside the Scope of Re-Cross  Inter Aliso Acta – First Branch
    ◦ Calls for Speculation (guess)
    ◦ Calls for Opinion (personal statement and not relevant)
    ▪ Except
     Expert Witness
     Ordinary witness pertaining to
    ◦ identity of a person about whom he has
    adequate knowledge
    ◦ handwriting with sufficient familiarity
    ◦ mental sanity
    ◦ impressions of the emotion, behavior,
    condition or appearance of a person
    ◦ Character Evidence
    ▪ Character of Victim
     the moral character of victim may be proved if it
    tends to establish the probability or improbability
    of the offense charged
    ◦ Calls for Admission of Similar Acts as Evidence - Inter alios
    acta – Second Branch (previous acts)
    ▪ except if used to prove a specific intent or knowledge,
    identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage

    You might also like