标题: Objection, Your Honor! (每天都来学习一点如何Objection) [打印本页] 作者: 阿泰 时间: 2012-11-29 13:54:12 标题: Objection, Your Honor! (每天都来学习一点如何Objection)
本帖最后由 阿泰 于 2012-12-3 10:33 编辑
作者: 阿泰 时间: 2012-12-3 10:28:35
本帖最后由 阿泰 于 2012-12-3 10:33 编辑
Ambiguous, confusing, misleading, vague, unintelligible: the question is not clear and precise enough for the witness to properly answer
Identify Misleading Questions In Court
One of the objections which either the defense attorney or the prosecution attorney in a trial might be able to rise is that of a misleading, confusing, vague, unintelligible, or ambiguous question. These objections should be raised immediately after the provoking question. The point of calling a question ambiguous, misleading, confusing, vague, or unintelligible is to say that a witness might not be able to answer that question clearly or appropriately, or to say that the jury might not interpret that question correctly, either.
The objection thus is meant to avoid the introduction of any information into the trial which might be improper to introduce, as a result of asking a question which is ambiguous or misleading enough to have been misinterpreted. Similarly, the objection would ensure that the witness would provide the asked-for information, as opposed to providing any other kind of information
Each of the terms, ambiguous, misleading, confusing, vague, and unintelligible, has a slightly different meaning in context, but they all fall under the general purview that a question must be a clearly phrased and worded interrogative, which the witness will know how to answer clearly and precisely.
A misleading question might be a question which seems to be asking one thing, but which leads the witness to answer another question, for example, and as such, even though it ultimately was not unintelligible, it would still be an improper, unclear question. Thus, these objections of “ambiguous,” “misleading,” “confusing,” “vague,” and “unintelligible,” are designed to help keep questions clear, and to avoid deceptive, manipulative tactics. 作者: 阿泰 时间: 2012-12-4 10:30:07
ARGUING THE CASE
Objection, your Honor. Counsel is arguing his/her case
Lawyers often do this, and are allowed some leeway. It occurs most often in opening statements where counsel states their version of the facts and then goes on to state what conclusions should be drawn from them.
ARGUING THE LAW OR FACTS, ATTEMPTING TO INDOCTRINATE THE JURORS ON THE LAW
Objection, your Honor. The purpose of counsel's question is to argue his case or pre-instruct the jury on the law.
Lawyers often make this kind of mistake, and it is improper for them during voir dire, or at any point, to give the jury a crash course in law. That is the judge's job, but lawyers get around it by saying "As you will undoubtedly hear from the judge, the law in this case requires...."作者: 阿泰 时间: 2012-12-5 10:02:11
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 THE JURY TO PREJUDGE THE EVIDENCE
Objection, the question asks the jury to prejudge the evidence
Questions at voir dire or whenever are improper if the call for a promise from the jurors to vote a particular way if certain facts are proven. For example,it is improper to say "If I prove the defendant was someplace else at the time, would you promise to acquit him?"作者: 阿泰 时间: 2012-12-7 09:42:55
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.
ASKING A QUESTION WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO AN INTELLIGENT EXERCISE OF A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE OR CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE
Objection, the question is not related to an intelligent exercise of...
Questions asked during voir dire must be designed to assist in the intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges whether or not such questions are also likely to uncover grounds sufficient to sustain a challenge for cause,
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.作者: 阿泰 时间: 2012-12-9 09:18:22
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Objection, offered exhibit fails to meet the best evidence rule
Applies to writings, such as a last will and testament, which are not the original writings -- that is, the best evidence. Requiring the original document insures that nothing has been altered in any way.
BEYOND THE SCOPE
Objection, Your Honor, this is beyond the scope of the direct
Permissible questions during cross, redirect, and recross must be related to information gathered during direct examination. Questions during redirect cannot go beyond the scope of cross, and questions during recross cannot go beyond the scope of redirect; and so on.
CALLS FOR 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. 作者: 阿泰 时间: 2012-12-10 11:33:59
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.
CUMULATIVE
Objection, Your Honor, this evidence is cumulative
Cumulative evidence repeats evidence already introduced. It is up to the judge's discretion when to stop production of the same evidence by one witness after another, or the introduction of similar exhibits if no new information is being offered.
FACTS STATED WILL NOT BE PROVEN
Objection, Facts stated will not be proven by evidence adduced at trial
Counsel cannot allude to evidence which, though true, is incapable of being proven at trial because of a pretrial ruling or some other test of admissibility.
FAILURE OF DEFENDANT TO TESTIFY
Objection, counsel is commenting on defendant's failure to testify
This objection is available only to defense counsel when the prosecution comments on the defendant's failure to testify. Such comments are only allowed in civil cases, and are forbidden by the Fifth Amendment in criminal cases.
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. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule, but it exists because second-hand statements are unreliable and cannot be tested by cross-examination.作者: jokema 时间: 2012-12-11 08:41:50
This is used when attacks on a witness's credibility go beyond the allowable grounds for impeachment. 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.
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.
MISSTATING THE EVIDENCE
Objection, counsel is misstating the evidence offered at trial
While reasonable inferences may be drawn, it is objectionable if the evidence is misstated or the testimony misquoted. Often, the ground for a "we except" statement, if overruled, which preserves grounds for appeal. In addition, some states require showing that the outcome of the trial was prejudiced by the misstatements.
MISSTATING THE LAW
Objection, counsel is misstating the law or jury instructions
Judges allow attorneys to paraphrase jury instructions, so long as they do it fairly and accurately in their closing arguments.作者: 阿泰 时间: 2012-12-12 14:01:23
NARRATIVE CALLED FOR
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.
NON-RESPONSIVE ANSWER
Objection, Your Honor, non-responsive
Used when an answer does not directly answer the question. And if the answer goes beyond the question, the excess is objectionable.
OPINION BY 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
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.
PERSONAL ATTACKS ON COUNSEL, DEFENDANT, OR WITNESS
Objection, counsel is personally attacking (me) (defendant) (witness)
This is usually reserved for cases when a lawyer acts like a bully. It is proper to attack testimony or credibility, but personal attacks, in an effort to vent or inflame emotions, is forbidden.作者: 阿泰 时间: 2012-12-13 09:28:48
PERSONAL OPINIONS BY COUNSEL
Objection, counsel is giving his/her personal opinion
Any statement based on a counsel's personal belief that something is or is not true is strictly forbidden. Lawyers can only comment on the credibility of a witness, the weight of the evidence, and arguments about the evidence, not if anything is true or false. This objection is also used for when a lawyer expresses their personal opinion about the integrity of opposing counsel, the defendant, or any witness. Attacks on credibility should never become personal.
PREJUDICIAL OR INFLAMMATORY REMARKS
Objection, counsel's argument is solely designed to prejudice the jury
Improper arguments include anything devised to appeal to the jury's sympathy, passions, or prejudice. For example, it is improper for a prosecutor to say that the jury has a moral obligation to protect society from the defendant, that the defendant will commit more crimes if released, or to imply that the defendant might strike back personally against the jury. Equally objectionable is for the defense to remind the jury of the defendant's family responsibilities, his/her sobbing young children, or bright future. These kinds of comments are only allowed at sentencing hearings.
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.作者: 阿泰 时间: 2012-12-13 09:29:07
