OBJECTIONS TO QUESTIONS

The first type of objection is an objection to the form of the question asked, or answer given. When an attorney makes
this type of objection, they are objecting to the nature of the question or answer, but not to its substance. Although
equally valid, some judges often prefer to hear less of these objections. This does not mean one should avoid making
them, but it simply requires the attorney to be conscientious and aware of the judge’s attitude. The following are the
most frequently used objections of this type:

Leading Question
This objection is made when counsel asks a leading question during direct examination. A leading question is a question
which actually suggests an answer. Leading question are allowed during cross examination, but not during direct.

Example: “At 8 pm that day, you were at the deli, correct?”

Compound Question
This objection is made when counsel asks a compound question. A compound question is a question that actually asks
multiple things, all linked by “and” or “or”.

Example: “Did you determine the time of death by interviewing witnesses and by requesting the autopsy report written
by the coroner?”

Question Calls for Narrative/Narrative Answer

This objection is made when either a witness begins telling a narrative as part of their answer, or counsel’s question calls
for a narrative. It is admissible for a witness to testify about what happened, but they must do so in response to a
question. This objection exists to prevent long winded witness answers. If a witness has answered the question, but
continues telling a story, this objection should be made.

Example: “First thing I did that was get up, and go to work. It was fairly normal day at work until the robbery, which
happened at around 1 pm. After that the police came, and began interviews. I was taken to the station, and was there
until around 10 pm. After this, I came back home….”

Argumentative Question
This objection is made when counsel begins arguing with a witness, badgering a witness or becoming overly aggressive.
This objection is made by an attorney to protect a witness during cross examination. The objection is fairly subjective in
terms of what is considered argumentative. Generally, a judge will allow more aggressive questioning if counsel is cross
examining the defendant.

Example: “How can you sit here and lie to the court about your attitude towards the victim?”

Asked and Answered Question

This objection is made when counsel has asked a question and received an answer, and asks the same question again. If
an answer is given, a new question must be asked. Counsel can ask a question multiple times if the witness is not giving
a full answer, is being uncooperative or unresponsive.

Example: “Did you stop at the stop sign on 5th and Main?”, “No”, “So, to be clear, you ran the stop sign?”
Vague and Ambiguous Question/Answer
This objection is made when either the question asked or answer given is vague and ambiguous in nature. This objection
can be used to help a witness answer a confusing question, or help an attorney get a more precise response.

Example: “When did you see it happen?”

Non-Responsive Answer
This objection is made when a witness does not answer the question being asked by the attorney. This objection can
help an attorney corral the witness and get a straight answer to questions the witness may be trying to avoid. Be careful
to avoid making this objection when the witness simply gives a different answer than what was expected or desired.

Example: “Weren’t you the last person the victim saw on the night of his death?”, “I had nothing to do with that!”

OBJECTIONS TO TESTIMONY

The second type of objection is an objection regarding the substance of the testimony or evidence being presented. An
attorney makes this type of objection to try and exclude the information given by the witness from the trial. An attorney
may desire to keep out certain evidence or testimony for several reasons. For example, it may detrimental to the case, it
may be false and unverifiable, or it may simply be inadmissible in court. Substantive objections are generally more
difficult to make, and require more legal understanding on the part of the attorney. The following are the most common
substantive objections in mock trial:

Relevance of Answer/Question
This objection is made when an attorney believes that irrelevant evidence to the case is being brought up. There are
several reasons why irrelevant evidence should be excluded. Primarily, it contributes nothing to the case, it may
sometimes reflect negatively on either side, and it also wastes precious time which should be used to tackle the real
questions. An attorney can object to an irrelevant question asked by opposing counsel, or to an answer which is either in
parts, or altogether, irrelevant. Use discretion with this objection, and don’t overuse, as what is relevant can be highly
subjective.

Example: “The victim’s favorite color was yellow, wasn’t it?”

Question Lacks Foundation

This objection is made when opposing counsel asks a question before establishing foundation for that question. If the
objection is sustained, the judge will require counsel to “lay a foundation” which involves backtracking and asking a
more general question. This objection is most often encountered while describing circumstances during direct
examination. Often attorneys will cut foundational questions at the start of examination in an effort to save time, so this
is where most of the objections will be made.

Example: “What did you see at the Broadway diner?” (No previous question asking about witnesses location, position,
etc.)

Lacks Personal Knowledge/Speculation

This objection is made when either an attorney asks the witness a question of which they have no personal knowledge,
or when a witness begins to testify about something they have not directly observed (speculation). Witnesses are only
allowed to testify about their own direct experiences and thoughts. Testifying as to what they believe may have
happened, or about another person’s state of mind, are all considered improper evidence. The only exception in mock
trial is that expert witnesses, or those who are called to the stand because of particular knowledge or experience, are
usually given greater exemption from this objection. It would not be speculation for a signature authenticator to testify
the defendant is guilty of fraud based on that expert’s analysis and professional opinion.

Example: The witness hears a gunshot from around a corner, runs, and sees the victim dead, and the defendant holding a
gun. The following is speculation: “I believe the defendant shot the victim”.

Creation of a Material Fact

This objection is made when an attorney believes that a witness has made a factual error in their testimony regarding
the case. This objection can also be applied if a question is extends past the scope of the witness’ statement and that it
“calls for the creation of a material fact by the witness”. Generally, this objection should only be used as a last resort,
and for major factual missteps. If the witness makes a minor error without huge significance to the case, this can be
brought up during cross examination; the word “material” in the title of the objection suggests that this objection should
only be used for errors that are relevant and meaningful for the case at hand. Additionally, even if a witness tells a
significant falsehood on the stand, it will always be better to take up the issue on cross examination, and impeach the
witness through the use of their own witness statement. The effect of this is twofold, in that the witness is shown to
have lied, and the judge sees the greater skill of the crossing attorney. The CMF objection should be made in the
situation when an attorney believes they will have insufficient time for cross examination, or in the case they believe a
more immediate and forceful course of action is necessary.

Example: “I was home with my girlfriend until 7 pm on Saturday”, “But in your witness statement, didn’t you state you
were home only until 6 pm?”

Improper Character Evidence

This objection is made when improper character evidence has been given as testimony in court. Improper character
evidence is when character evidence (think general personality traits) is used to show how a person acted in a specific
situation. There are three exceptions to this rule in which this kind of character evidence is permissible:

 If this evidence is offered by the defense and applied to the character and actions of the defendant to prove
innocence, it is admissible.
 If this evidence is offered by the defense and applied to the character and actions of the victim to prove
innocence, it is admissible.
 If this evidence is offered to show dishonesty or a tendency to lie by any witness, it is admissible. In this
situation, the opposing counsel may rebut with positive character evidence to show the contrary.

Example: “The defendant was always rude to me, and particularly so on the day of the murder.”

Lay Witness Opinion

This objection is made when lay witnesses (witnesses who are not qualified as experts and do not personal experience),
testify with personal inferences or subjective statements. Opinion testimony is only admissible when it is based on
perceptions/observations made with the witness’s five senses, and is helpful to clearer understanding of the witness’s
testimony. This objection is similar to Lacks Personal Knowledge/Speculation, and sometimes can be used
interchangeably.
Example: “I believe the defendant was in a crazed state of mind.”

Hearsay
This objection is made when a witness testifies about a statement made by another person, and uses contents of the
other person’s statement to prove a fact true or false. This kind of testimony is considered hearsay because the actual
declarant of the statement in question is neither under oath on the stand, nor will be cross examined. Therefore,
hearsay is considered unreliable and inadmissible except in limited circumstances. Because of several exceptions to the
hearsay rule, this objection is often the most difficult for new attorneys to understand. The following are some of the
more common exceptions in which hearsay is allowed for the truth of the matter:

Declaration against interest: Hearsay is allowed if the statement in question is against the declarant’s economic, legal,
criminal, civil or general interests.

Excited utterance: Hearsay is allowed if the statement in question is made by the declarant during or shortly after a
startling event from which the declarant is still influenced, and describes or explains said event.

State of mind: Hearsay is allowed if the statement in question reveals the declarant’s state of mind, emotional or
physical condition at the time of the statement.

Records made in the regular course of business: Hearsay is allowed if the statement in question was made in the form of
a record in the regular course of a business or government procedure.

Prior inconsistent statement: Hearsay is allowed if the statement in question is inconsistent with the declarant’s trial
testimony

Reputation of a person’s character in the community: Hearsay is allowed if the statement in question is evidence of a
person’s reputation or character within a community or group.

Dying declaration: Hearsay is allowed if the statement in question was made by a dying person about their cause or
circumstances of death, with the declarant’s personal knowledge and a sense of impending death.

Admission by party opponent: Hearsay is allowed if the statement in question was made by a person, and is being
offered against that person by an opposing party during trial.

One of the key points regarding hearsay in mock trial that is often overlooked is the precise definition of what makes
another person’s statement inadmissible. Another statement is only hearsay if it is being offered for the truth of the
matter. If a witness is testifying to another’s statement, not to show that it is true, but instead, for example, to justify a
subsequent action, then the testimony is not hearsay and does not require an exception to the hearsay rule. When
dealing with statements of witnesses other than their own, attorneys must be very careful, and must be prepared to
defend the testimony against opposing hearsay objections.

A judge will also be more likely to entertain arguments for and against a substantive objection, so attorneys must be
ready to respond to a judge’s questions with sound, legal analysis. If an attorney strongly believes that a judge has not
given them a fair opportunity to explain their objection, or to respond to an opposing objection, it is reasonable to ask,
“May I be heard your Honor?”, or “May I respond to the objection your Honor?”. If the judge denies the request, the
attorney should move on but take note of the preference and avoid asking again.
WHAT ARE OBJECTIONS?
During trial, each party may call witnesses to testify on its behalf. Each party, through its attorney, poses questions to
the witness, who then answers. During testimony, any attorney may object. An objection is a request that the judge
disallow a question, limit the testimony, or instruct a witness to give a complete answer to a question.
An objection—if made correctly—is made immediately after the question is asked and before the witness answers.
Occasionally, objections are made to a witness’ testimony as well.
Generally, in the course of trial, the judge rules on the objection by either sustaining or denyingit.
If the objection is sustained, the judge has essentially agreed that the question/answer is improper. If the
judge overrules the objection, the question (or answer) may stand and the examination can continue.
Objections can be made at any time—opening statements, direct examination, cross-examination, or even closing
arguments.

WHY OBJECT?
Objections are made primarily to: (1) exclude inadmissible or irrelevant evidence from being heard or seen by the jury;
(2) disallow questions that are confusing, misleading, or abusive. The purpose of the objection is to “pause” the
testimony so that the judge may rule on the admissibility of the testimony.
It is the judge’s role—not the jury’s—to decide whether a question or answer is proper.
Objections are also made to preserve issues for appeal. In most, if not all jurisdictions, objections are waived on appeal if
not made at the time of trial.

WHEN NOT TO OBJECT

Caution: This article and video simulation is not legal advice, is not state-specific and may differ from the laws and court
rules in your jurisdiction. Whether you are represented by an attorney or representing yourself pro se / pro per, always
read and comply with the laws and court rules in your jurisdiction. Please read The Legal Seagull’s full disclaimer before
proceeding.
When should you not object? This is often a difficult decision—but one that needs to be made very quickly. Even though
judges tell jurors that they should not hold objections against an attorney, objecting too much may negatively impact
your standing with the jury.
If the jurors sense that an attorney is making objections to suppress unfavorable testimony or evidence, they may come
to view the attorney (and client) with suspicion. Moreover, repeatedly making objections can irritate jurors who do not
want to see the trial go on forever.
As a general rule, good trial attorneys will hold off on making objections when the witness’ testimony is helping their
case, even if there is a problematic question or testimony. They also avoid making objections when only minor,
insignificant testimony is involved that does not concern the major issues of the case. To object or not to object . . . that
is the question!

TIPS FOR MAKING OBJECTIONS

Be timely
As soon as you know there are grounds for an objection and that objecting is in your (or your client’s) best interests,
object! Remember, if the jury has already heard the witness’ answer, your objection will do little to unring that bell,
even if the judge sustains the objection. Take this for example:
Attorney #1: What did the elderly lady say?
Witness: She said, “The black van blew right through the red light.”
Attorney #2: Objection! Calls for hearsay.
Judge: Objection sustained. Jury, please disregard the witness’ testimony regarding what the elderly said.
This example illustrates the importance of making objections timely. Although the jurors were instructed by the judge to
disregard the significant testimony containing inadmissible hearsay, it is easier said than done to ignore something you
just heard—especially when it is highly relevant to the case!

Stand up
Always stand up when making objections unless the judge tells you to be seated or you have a medical problem making
standing difficult or impossible.
State grounds
Tell the judge briefly what the basis of the objection is. Examples may include:
Objection: Calls for hearsay.
Objection: Irrelevant.
Objection: Vague and ambiguous.
Objection: Improper character evidence.
Objection: Asked and answered.
Speak directly to the judge
You must direct your comments to the judge—not your opponent or the jury. The judge—who decides issue of law—
determines whether to sustain or overrule an objection.

Do not ramble
Generally speaking, judges do not like “speaking objections” (i.e., objections accompanied by a speech from the
attorney).
Here is an example of a “speaking objection”:
Attorney #1: Why did the officer pull you over?
Attorney #2: Objection: calls for speculation. This question asks the witness to elaborate on the officer’s thought
process, which requires him to speculate as to . . .
Judge: Objection sustained. Counsel, please refrain from making speaking objections in my courtroom. I know the
law.
If the judge wants you to explain your position or respond to your opponent’s objection, he or she will ask you to do so.

OBJECTIONS TO FORM OF QUESTION

Objections that are aimed at the structure of the question—such as the choice of words, ambiguity, or other problems
with the question that make it unclear or likely to confuse or mislead the witness.
Often, objections regarding form can be overcome by simply rephrasing the question so that it is no longer
objectionable.

Here are a few common examples of form objections:

1. Leading
When asking questions on direct examination, the general rule is that leading questions are not allowed, except for
initial background questions and under limited circumstances.
A leading question is one that suggests the particular answer that the attorney is looking to elicit. Here are examples of
leading vs. non-leading questions:
By contrast, leading questions are generally permitted on cross examination and when dealing with adverse or hostile
witnesses.
In fact, leading questions can be very effective in cross examination because they can force the witness to answer “yes
or no” questions without providing wiggle room to elaborate or explain away unfavorable facts.

2. Asked and answered

The question has already been answered and therefore should not have to be answered a second time. Sometimes,
attorneys will ask the same—or substantially the same—question numerous times to emphasize it for purposes of
making it clear to the jury. This is improper.

3. Misstates testimony
Attorneys often attempt to mischaracterize, misstate, or “embellish” a witness’ testimony to suit the narrative they are
looking to advance. For example:
Witness: She got back up and there was blood on her chin.
Attorney #1: As the blood was oozing out of her chin, did she look panicked?
Attorney #2: Objection, misstates testimony.
You see what Attorney #1 attempted to do here? The witness’ testimony mentioned nothing about “oozing”; in fact,
there is no indication based on this testimony that the blood even came from the witness . . .

4. Calls for a narrative

Attorneys may ask open-ended questions, especially on direct examination. However, if a question is so broad that it
essentially calls for the witness to give a lengthy narrative, an objection may be made.

5. Calls for speculation

The question asks the witness to speculate or guess as to something that is not within his or her personal knowledge.
Lay witnesses (i.e., non-experts) may testify as to their personal knowledge but generally not to matters outside their
first-hand knowledge.
This objection is commonly raised when the question asks the witness to interpret someone else’s state of mind. Here is
an example:
Witness: A man with a glorious ponytail came in and bought a newspaper with his credit card.
Attorney #1: Why did the man use his credit card instead of paying with cash?
Attorney #2: Objection, calls for speculation.
Judge: Sustained.
Attorney #1: Why did the man have a ponytail?
Attorney #2: Objection, calls for speculation—and irrelevant.
Judge: Sustained. Counsel, move on.

6. Compound question
A question is compound if it consists of two or more questions bundled into one. For example:
Attorney #1: Was Fred good at his job and well-liked by his coworkers?
Attorney #2: Objection, compound.
Judge: Sustained—can we break that down?
Attorney #1: Was the defendant good at his job?
Witness: Yes, he was.
Attorney #1: Was he well-liked by his coworkers?
Witness: No, he was actually a real jerk. His coworkers hated his guts.

7. Argumentative
The question consists of arguments, interpretation of the evidence, or recitation of facts.
This objection is often made to questions that attempt to influence the witness’ testimony by inserting the attorney’s
interpretation of the evidence into the question. Here is an example:
Attorney #1: How often did you get your brakes checked prior to the accident?
Witness: Twice a week.
Attorney #1: You expect this jury to believe that you got under your car, twice a week, every week, to check your
brakes?
Attorney #2: Objection, argumentative.
Judge: Sustained.

8. Harassing / abusing / “badgering” the witness

An objection for “badgering the witness” is typically made when the attorney is resorting to personal attacks and
crossing the line into comments and suggestions that are insulting, demeaning, or hostile.
This tactic is sometimes done to provoke an emotional response or in the hope of “scoring points” with the jury (note:
this can—and often does—backfire!). Here is an example:
Attorney #1: In fact, the whole reason you married Mr. Moneybags is that you’re a money-grubbing gold digger, isn’t
that true?
Attorney #2: Objection!
Judge: Sustained! Counsel, conduct yourself professionally or I will cite you for contempt!

9. Confusing
Objections to confusing questions are typically made when the question is unclear, ambiguous, vague, or, well . . . just
plain confusing. Remember—if a question doesn’t make sense to you, it might not make sense to the witness or jury
either . . .

10. Non-responsive
An objection for non-responsiveness can be made by any party to a witness’ answer that does not answer the question,
rambles, or gives testimony that goes beyond the scope of the question.
Attorney #1: In what year did you meet Bozo?
Witness: We’ve known each other since we were students at clown school. A lot of people don’t know that Bozo was
quite the ladies’ man . . . anyway, when he got back from his second tour in Afghanistan, after his divorce, I . . .
Attorney #2: Objection, non-responsive.
Judge: Sustained. Mr. Pennywise, please answer the question.
Witness: Huh? What was the question?
Attorney #1: How long have you known Bozo?
Witness: 12 years . . . I’ve known him since the very day he won his third-straight hog-wrestling contest, and I’m
telling you, no way Bozo is guilty of any of these charges . . .
Attorney #2: Objection! Non-responsive!
Judge: Sustained.

OBJECTIONS TO SUBSTANCE OF QUESTION

Objections to substance are directed at the information the question is seeking to elicit. Attorneys making objections to
substance primarily seek to exclude testimony that is inadmissible (e.g., hearsay or certain character evidence),
improper, irrelevant, or substantially prejudicial.

Here are a few common examples of making objections to the substance of testimony:

1. Lacks foundation
If a question is asked without first establishing that the witness has a basis to answer it (i.e., personal knowledge or
familiarity with the topic), an objection may lie for lack of foundation.
This often happens when the examining attorney is going too fast and not asking preliminary questions to demonstrate
the witness’ familiarity with the facts.
Attorney #1: Are you a tennis player?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney #1: What percentage of a tennis ball is made of rubber?
Attorney #2: Objection, lacks foundation.
Judge: Sustained.
For purposes of this example, there was no testimony establishing that (1) rubber is used in the production of tennis
balls; or (2) that the witness has any knowledge regarding the manufacturing or composition of tennis balls. Why would
he, based on what you have just read?
Therefore, the attorney had not yet sufficiently laid a foundation for the question (in other words, she was going too
fast!). Now, let’s assume that the attorney resumes her line of questioning to lay a proper foundation:
Attorney #1: Do you know what tennis balls are made of?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney #1: How do you know that?
Witness: Before retiring in April, I worked as a floor supervisor at a tennis ball factory for 20 years.
Attorney #1: As part of your duties as a floor supervisor, were you involved in supervising the manufacture of tennis
balls?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney #1: Did you become familiar with the materials used to manufacture tennis balls?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney #1: What materials are used to manufacture tennis balls?
Witness: Mainly rubber, with some wool.
Attorney #1: What percentage of a tennis ball is made of rubber?
Witness: I’d say about 85-90%.
If your opponent objects for lack of foundation, DO NOT PANIC! Catch your breath, back up a few steps, and ask the
witness questions to show the court that the witness is qualified to testify about the subject you are asking about!

2. Assumes facts not in evidence

If a question includes a fact that has not yet been presented, it is vulnerable to an objection for assuming facts not in
evidence. This objection is similar to lack of foundation, and the two are often made at the same time. Here is an
example:
Attorney #1: Where were you at the time of the accident?
Witness: I was standing at the bus stop right near the southeast corner of the intersection of Main Street and 7th
Avenue.
Attorney #1: What did the driver of the black van throw out of the window?
Attorney #2: Objection, the question assumes facts not in evidence. And it’s a leading question.
Judge: Sustained.
Here, there was no testimony prior to this question that: (1) there was a black van, (2) the witness could see the driver,
or that (3) the witness saw the driver throwing something out of the window.
As with the previous example, Attorney #1 could then go back and ask additional questions to bring those facts into
evidence first before asking what the witness saw the driver of the black van throw out the window.

3. Irrelevant
In order to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Although every jurisdiction may define “relevance” differently,
most states define relevance similarly or identically to Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides that
“[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the
evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.”
For example:
Attorney #1: You used to date the plaintiff, Miss Andrews?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney #1: Why did you break up?
Attorney #2: Objection, irrelevant!
[Conversation moves to sidebar]
Attorney #2: This is irrelevant. The reason for the break-up has nothing to do with this personal injury lawsuit.
Attorney #1: Your Honor, this is relevant to prove bias. I expect the witness to testify that he broke up with my client
because she cheated on him and emptied his bank accounts. This witness has a strong bias against my client, which
calls into question the veracity of his testimony. The jury should be allowed to hear about the reasons for the breakup
because it shows that he is not a fair and impartial witness because of his anger and disappointment over her actions.
Judge: Sustained. The question is relevant on the issue of bias and “fair game” for impeachment purposes.

4. Unfair prejudice
“Unfair prejudice” may be defined differently in each jurisdiction, but many states model their rules after Rule 403 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence, providing that certain testimony or evidence, even if relevant, may be excluded if it is
substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to a party to the case.

5. Hearsay
The rules barring hearsay evidence (and the dozens of exceptions and exclusions) is far too complicated of a topic to
discuss in this article. A short and over-simplified explanation of these rules is that an (1) out-of-court statement that is
(2) offered for the truth of the matter asserted, is inadmissible . . . unless, of course, an exception or exclusion applies . .