Jul 30, 2019
What is The Purpose of an Objection in a Mock Trial?
Making clear, powerful objections before a judge is one of the most important skills necessary to a strong attorney, whether he or she is arguing before the Supreme Court or a Mock Trial judge. In mock trial, witnesses are only allowed to testify to official records contained in the case packet, and they cannot testify to material facts that are not included in the packet. Below is a list of suggestions to help make objections cogent, substantive, and commanding in any courtroom.
Mock Trial Objections as to form of the question.
Leading – suggests the answer. Leading questions are not allowed during direct examination.
Compound – multiple questions as opposed to one.
Narrative – too general, asks the witness to tell a story.
Argumentative – challenging, arguing, badgering the witness.
Asked and Answered – question has already been asked.
Vague and Ambiguous – question is not clear or understandable.
Non-responsive – witness doesn’t answer the question.
Generally, form objections can be cured by re-phrasing the question. Most judges don’t like form objections, since they are viewed as “technical.” Limit the use of these objections, and use them tactically. If they are used blatantly or repeatedly, it will disrupt the flow of an examination.
Objections to substance and personal knowledge.
Relevance – not related to the disputed issue in the case.
Foundation – attorney must establish necessary information before the witness can testify. Example: the witness was in a position to see or hear what is being asked. Called “laying a foundation.” Objections can be made to improper testimony if the foundation is not properly laid.
Personal Knowledge – witness must have personal knowledge of what he or she is testifying about. Objections can be made if a witness lacks personal knowledge of the events they are testifying about.
Character evidence – witness cannot testify about someone’s character unless it is at issue in the case.
Honesty and credibility is always at issue with any witness. In criminal trials, defense can introduce evidence of the ‘good character’ of the defendant, and ‘bad character’ of an important prosecution witness. Once the defendant puts character at issue, prosecution can respond with evidence of bad character.
Opinion Testimony of Lay Witness – generally, lay witnesses cannot give opinion testimony unless it is rationally based on the witnesses’ perception, or helpful to understanding the witness’s testimony. Lay witness opinions are limited to those based on their observations and perceptions.
Inferences and subjective statements.
Exceptions: speed, mental and emotional states, sobriety, sanity, identity of voice or handwriting.
Expert Witness or Opinion Testimony – experts can give opinions, unlike lay witnesses, but they must have the requisite qualifications and their opinions must be based on the evidence experts in that field generally rely on.
In a criminal case, an expert can’t give an opinion as to whether a defendant did or did not have the requisite mental state in issue.
Hearsay – out of court statement admitted for the truth of the matter asserted.
First question: is statement being offered for the truth?
If statement is being offered to show statement was made or heard, or to show subsequent actions of listener, it is not being offered for the truth, and not hearsay.
Numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule; admission against interest of party (usually any statement of the defendant, excited utterance, state of mind of declarant, declaration against interest (puts declarant at risk for criminal or civil liability), business or official records, past recollection recorded (e.g. written witness statement), reputation of person character in community, dying declaration, co-conspirator statements.
Creating a material fact (specific to mock trial) – witness creates a material fact not included in the official record.
Defined by mock trial rules: “a fact that tends to prove a pivotal point in the case.”
Making the Objection
Stand and say, for example, “Objection your honor that question lacks foundation. May I be heard?” If the court allows, explain your issue. Always ask to be heard before explaining or rebutting. Always address the judge, not the other lawyer.
If you’ve already made the point or are at a loss of words, say “Submitted, your honor.”
“Sustained” means an objection is granted; “Over-ruled” means not granted.
Don’t thank the judge for ruling in your favor. Just move on.
If your objection is sustained (granted), and the witness has already answered or partly answered, “Move to strike that portion of improper testimony that is objectionable.”
Make a timely objection as soon as a question is asked and before the witness starts talking (if possible).
Judges rule differently. Some are sticklers about certain types of evidence; others let everything in. Pay attention to gauge how the judge is responding to objections. If certain objections aren’t working, don’t keep making them. Alternatively, if the judge is granting, keep objecting.
Multiple Objections in a Mock Trial and Cross Examination
There can be more than one objection. If so, make both at same time:
“Objection your Honor, hearsay and relevance. May I be heard?”
“Objection your honor that question lacks foundation and is leading. May I be heard?”
Objections can also be made during cross examination, such as objections to leading questions, hearsay, or the creation of a material fact.
Remember: Evidence must always be relevant. So just because the question gets around the hearsay rule (for example), the evidence still be relevant (e.g. question calls for the state of mind of a witness; therefore it meets the ‘state of mind’ hearsay exception. However, in a criminal trial normally only the defendant’s state of mind is relevant. Even though the evidence satisfies the hearsay rule, it is still irrelevant and inadmissible.
Here is a list of common mock trial objections:
Objection, hearsay: This objection is raised when a witness is testifying about something they heard someone else say, rather than something they personally saw or experienced.
Objection, leading: This objection is raised when a lawyer asks a witness a question that suggests a specific answer, rather than allowing the witness to testify freely.
Objection, foundation: This objection is raised when a witness is asked to testify about something they don’t have enough personal knowledge or experience to speak to.
Objection, irrelevance: This objection is raised when a question or testimony is not relevant to the issues in the case.
Objection, speculation: This objection is raised when a witness is asked to speculate about something, rather than testify about what they know for sure.
Objection, improper argument: This objection is raised when a lawyer is making an argument rather than asking a question, or when a witness is giving an opinion rather than stating facts.
Objection, compound question: This objection is raised when a lawyer asks a witness multiple questions in a single sentence.
Objection, compound statement: This objection is raised when a witness makes multiple statements in a single answer.
Objection, best evidence: This objection is raised when a witness is asked to testify about the contents of a document, rather than introducing the document itself as evidence.
Objection, foundation for expert testimony: This objection is raised when a witness who is qualified as an expert has not been properly qualified to give testimony in a particular area of expertise.
Objection, witness testifies: This objection is raised when a witness is testifying about a statement made by another person, which can lead to hearsay issues.
Objection, witness opinion: This objection is raised when a lay witness is providing an opinion that is not based on their personal knowledge and experience.
Andy Gillin received his Bachelor’s Degree from the University of California at Berkeley and his law degree from the University of Chicago. He is the managing partner of GJEL Accident Attorneys and has written and lectured in the field of plaintiffs’ personal injury law for numerous organizations. Since 1972 he has been helping seriously injured victims throughout northern California fight & win their personal injury cases. Andy is one of the top awarded & recognized wrongful death lawyers in northern California.
Andy Gillin received his Bachelor’s Degree from the University of California at Berkeley and his law degree from the University of Chicago. He is the managing partner of GJEL Accident Attorneys and has written and lectured in the field of plaintiffs’ personal injury law for numerous organizations. Since 1972 he has been helping seriously injured victims throughout northern California fight & win their personal injury cases. Andy is one of the top awarded & recognized wrongful death lawyers in northern California.