Standard Objections
forceful and pressing, if they go too far a judge will sustain
An attorney can object any time she or he thinks the
opposing attorney is violating the rules of evidence. The
attorney may object to questions that the other side’s
attorney is asking, to answers that a witness is giving, or to
exhibits that the other side is attempting to admit into
evidence. Generally attorneys are not allowed to object to
opening statements or closing arguments.
The attorney wishing to object should stand up and do so at
the time of the violation. Only one attorney should stand
and object at a time. The attorney assigned to do the direct
or cross-examination of a particular witness should be the
only attorney able to raise objections when the opposing side
conducts its examination of that witness. Once an objection
has been made, the witness should stop talking until the
objection has been resolved.
When an objection is made, the judge will ask the reason for
the objection. The objecting attorney should state what
specific rule of evidence is being violated.
Then the judge will turn to the other attorney who asked the
question or offered the exhibit, and that attorney usually will
have a chance to explain why the objection should not be
accepted (that is, should be “overruled”) by the judge.
The judge will then decide whether the question, answer, or
exhibit must be discarded because it has violated a rule of
evidence (“Objection sustained”) or whether to allow the
question, answer, or exhibit to become part of the trial record
(“Objection overruled”).
If the objection has been overruled, the attorney asking the
question should persevere and ask the question again to
ensure that the witness gets to answer the question or the
exhibit gets admitted into evidence. Many times once the
objection is overruled, the attorney doesn’t follow up and
pursue the issue. When judges rule against attorneys,
attorneys should take the ruling gracefully, not making facial
expressions or gestures that show the ruling affected them.
Similarly, attorneys pleased with a ruling should not thank
the judge for it.
When objections are sustained, attorneys should move on to
another question and end their questioning on a strong note.
If the judge has overruled an objection by an attorney, that
attorney should not be afraid to object to another question.
OBJECTIONS
Ambiguous, Confusing, Misleading, Vague,
Objection Your Honor, the question is (confusing)
(ambiguous) (vague) (misleading)
Any of these is the proper objection to a question not posed
in a clear and precise manner so that the witness knows with
certainty what information is being sought.
Argumentative
Objection, the question is argumentative
An argumentative question is where counsel states a
conclusion and then asks the witness to argue with it, often
in an attempt to get the witness to change their mind. Also
known as "badgering" the witness.
Attorneys cannot badger or argue with the witness.
Questions may also not be argumentative in tone or manner.
Badgering is harassing or asking again and again. While
attorneys questioning the other side’s witnesses can be
an objection for being argumentative.
Asked and Answered
Objection, the question has already been asked and
answered
Lawyers will often try to emphasize a point by repeating the
question that elicited a crucial answer. Some limited
repetition is allowed, but most courts will sustain an objection
if the question has been asked two or three times.
Asking a Question which Introduces Prejudicial or
Inflammatory Evidence
Objection, the question introduces inadmissible prejudicial
evidence
Most any line of questioning which would unduly prejudice or
inflame the jury is inadmissible. For example, a series of
questions which create the impression that the defendant
has a long history of prior criminal conduct.
Assumes Facts Not in Evidence
Objection, the question assumes facts not in evidence
This objection is used when the introductory part of a
question assumes the truth of a material fact that is in
dispute. Questions that assume facts are permitted only
under cross-examination, and usually to impeach a witness'
credibility.
Beyond the Scope
Objection, Your Honor, this is beyond the scope of the direct
Permissible questions during cross, redirect, and re-cross
must be related to information gathered during direct
examination. Questions during redirect cannot go beyond the
scope of cross, and questions during re-cross cannot go
beyond the scope of redirect; and so on.
Calls for a Conclusion
Objection, counsel's question call for a conclusion
Conclusions regarding the end result of reasoning flowing
from a series of facts are left to the jury. Normally, the
witness shouldn't draw conclusions, but rather present facts.
However, expert witnesses present conclusions, and lay
witnesses are allowed to under certain conditions. For
example, the court might allow the statement that "the car
was going too fast" instead of requiring "the car was going
very fast".
Calls for Speculation
Objection, Your Honor, calls for speculation
Anything that invites a witness to guess is objectionable.
Speculation as to what possibly could have happened is of
little probative value. Some leeway is allowed for the witness
to use their own words, and greater freedom is allowed with
expert witnesses.
Attorneys cannot ask questions that get witnesses to guess
at answers. An opposing witness cannot create new facts
that would change the outcome of the case, although
witnesses can add minor details. If the attorney believes a
witness has gone beyond the information provided and is
providing new information that is totally out of character and
will change the outcome of the trial, use the following
objection: “Objection. The witness is creating material fact
that is not in the record.”
Compound Question
Objection, Your Honor, compound question
A compound question asks two or more separate questions
within the framework of a single question. Generally
reserved for situations if the witness answers "No", it is
confusing as to which part of the question is being answered.
Hearsay
Objection, the question calls for hearsay
Hearsay is a statement made by someone other than the
witness testifying and offered to prove its own truth.
Statements that are made outside of the courtroom are
usually not allowed as evidence if they are offered in court to
show that the statements are true. The most common
hearsay problem arises when a witness is asked to tell what
another person said to him or her.
There are exceptions to the hearsay rule, but it exists
because second-hand statements are unreliable and cannot
be tested by cross-examination. There are many exceptions
to the hearsay rule. Two of the most common are
a. That a witness may repeat a statement made by either
party in the case if the statement contains evidence that
goes against his or her side; OR
b. If a person’s state of mind at the time of a certain event is
important, any statements made about that event at the time
the event occurred concerning the speaker’s intent,
knowledge, or belief will be admissible.
Lack of Personal Knowledge
“Objection. The witness has no personal knowledge that
would enable him or her to answer this question.”
The witness is testifying to things that the witness has not
directly seen, heard, or experienced.
Leading
Objection, the question is leading.
A leading question suggests the answer one expects to hear;
"You were at the victim's home that night, weren't you?” The
lawyer should not be doing the testifying. Leading questions
are permitted under certain circumstances, usually in cross-
examination, with expert witnesses, with young, old, or poor
recall witnesses, and with any hostile, evasive, or adverse
witness.
Narrative
Objection, counsel's question calls for a narrative
This is used when there is danger of a witness running away
with their story, or to start pouring out their testimony. There
are times when a narrative is appropriate, and better than
question and answer, but in this case, the objection is to
prevent inadmissible evidence from pouring out before
counsel has a chance to object.
Opinion of an Unqualified Witness
Objection, counsel's question calls for an improper opinion.
Or, Objection, the witness hasn't been sufficiently qualified
as an expert.
Or, Objection, insufficient foundation.
Unless it is within the common experience of people to form
an opinion on the subject, opinions will not be allowed.
Expert witnesses may give opinions, if they explain the basis
for the opinion, which is called “laying a foundation.” An
expert witness is someone who by training or experience has
special knowledge in the case.
Opinion testimony is proper only in the area of expertise or
specialized knowledge that an expert witness is qualified in.
Lay witnesses may give opinions only when their perception
is helpful to the jury; e.g., time, distance, speed, sobriety.
Relevance
Objection, the question calls for an irrelevant answer.
Something is irrelevant if it does not serve, by any natural
pattern of inference, to establish an issue of fact. The court is
bound by efficiency and must prevent distractions on
extraneous issues that do not have a relationship to the trial.
Beyond the usual method of pointing out contradictory
evidence, there are generally 5 WAYS TO IMPEACH a
witness:
(1) bias or prejudice, if paid, stands to gain, a friend or rival;
(2) Poor character, for honesty or veracity;
(3) Conviction, if less than 10 years ago;
(4) Poor memory, if lack ability to observe, remember, or
recount; and
(5) Prior inconsistent statement, but only if an important fact,
such as saying they worked that day, then later saying they
had the day off. With expert witnesses, beyond the usual
method of attacking credentials, unsubstantiated attempts to
overturn the presumption of regularity that imply substitution,
contamination, or tampering are improper.
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.
The key to mastering objections in mock trial is learning how
to make objections and how to defend against them. Both of
these skills can be improved through practice. At all times
during team practice, attorneys should pay attention and
listen for possible objections. Similarly, attorneys must be
prepared to scrutinize their own direct and cross
examinations and be ready to defend against any possible
objections raised by opposing counsel. Objections may
seem stressful at first, but they are genuinely one of the most
fun and rewarding aspects of the attorney experience.
Objections help keep a trial dynamic, and allow attorneys to
think on their feet and show of their legal arguing skills. If an
attorney takes the time to practice and master this facet of
mock trial, the returns will be exponential, both in terms of
team performance and personal satisfaction during
competition.
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 . .