Lawyers object in court (criminal or civil) because they think that the question being asked/testimony being elicited violates the rules of evidence. For example, there is a rule against speculation. A lawyer cannot asked a witness if someone else was scared, e.g., because that requires the witness to guess/speculate, and witnesses are, in theory, only allowed to testify as to facts (except expert witnesses, who can provide opinions). Objecting in Court depends on the jurisdiction's rules of evidence. If it is Federal Court, the judge will rule in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence; and each state has its own rules of evidence, though all share common themes. I would try googling Mock Trial evidence rules for Law School or college competitions. These will provide you with a simplified version of the evidence rules. You can't just learn the entire body of evidence law while browsing the internet; it usually requires a couple of courses in law school and years as a litigator. But a simplified version could help you learn the basics of hearsay, speculation, argumentation/badgering, leading questions, etc., etc. Good luck.
If you're serious about learning them, I would suggest buying a treatise from Westlaw for your jurisdiction. Just google Westlaw, give them a call, and ask them if they have published a treatise on the rules of evidence for your jurisdiction. Caveat: this treatise will be written as if you've been to law school and are now preparing to practice in that jurisdiction, so it will be written in a way that assumes you have already taken evidence in law school. really though, I would go with the mock trial rules- just wing it. Thee worst the judge can do is overruled the objection (unless you overdo it).
2007-02-01 00:20:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by John Tiggity 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
The question violates right of the accused; it is against decency. etc. The issue deals on trial technique or criminal procedure or constitution
2007-02-01 00:08:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by wilma m 6
·
0⤊
0⤋