Defense Lawyer?

Question

So at school we are pretending to actually be in court. I have to be a lawyer and I have to research the basic rules and things about being a lawyer. I need to know when to object and when not to.

I have no clue about anything! Please help! >___<

Answer 1

Ok, there is a rule about "objecting" that is often difficult to learn. One should only object when what the other guy is doing is hurting your case.

One of the most common objections is an objection to a leading objection. A leading question is one that suggests the answer such as "The light was green, wasn't it?" or "isn't it true the light was green." These types of questions are ones you can ask on cross-examination (questioning witnesses called by your opponent) but cannot ask on direct (questioning your own witnesses). If your opponent starts asking these kinds of questions when he is questioning his own witness, you can object by saying "Objection your honor, leading."

Another common objection is relevancy. Relevant questions are those that are pertinent to the issue. So if, for example, the case is a criminal case and the defendant is being charged with burglary, a relevant question to ask the eye witness would be "Were you wearing your glasses that evening:?" or "Describe the lighting near the front door where you observed the man with the crowbar in his hand." These are relevant questions because the ability to see the person who committed the crime is pertinent to the issue of whether the defendant is guilty or not.

However a irrelevant question is one that has nothing to do with the case. For instance, take the same eye witness, an irrelevant question would be " Now, Mrs. Smith, isn't it true you have been married eight times." The fact that she has been married 8 times is not relevant to whether she was able to see the person who committed the burglary.

Relevancy is a bit tricky because evidence of a person's bias, motive to lie, etc is always relevant. However, if a question is not pertinent in any way to the case, one can object by saying "Objection, your honor, irrelevant."

Finally, you can object if your opponent is badgering the witness or being argumentative. The purpose of questioning the witness is not to argue the case. So if your opponent keep asking the same question even though the witness is answering each question or starts raising his voice while questioning a witness because he does not like what the witness is saying, you can object "Objection, argumentative" or "Objection, counsel is badgering the witness."

Good luck!

Answer 2

Objections are based on the rules of evidence -- what is admissible and what is not -- which vary by jurisdiction.

Unless your school actually wants to be state specific, you're probably alright using the Federal Rules of Evidence -- which is what gets used in federal court, and is pretty close to the rules used by most state courts.

The most obvious objections are where the other side is asking the witness to repeat what someone else said -- "hearsay" -- or where the other side is asking a question that is complex or confusing -- "compound question" or "ambiguous"-- or where the other side is asking the same question over again after the person has already answered it -- "asked and answered".

If you really want to go into detail, there's a pocket guide called "Federal Rules of Evidence with Objections" that you can find in any lawschool bookstore.

Answer 3

Well, normally, an objection is raised either to prevent evidence being introduced, or to a question asked of a witness.

The rules of evidence are lengthy and its not possible to explain them fully here. Here are some sample objections, however, and what to look for:

1) Objection: Lacks foundation. This mean that the evidence which is sought to be admitted hasn't been shown to be relevant, or in the alternative, it hasn't been shown as to how it relates to the case. For instance: if you are trying a case of check fraud, the state's attorney can't just introduce the fraudulent check into evidence. He first has to have a witness (or witnesses) explain the chain of custody, and show how the fraud was discovered.

2) Objection: heresay. Hearsay testimony is not usually admissible, although there are a lot of exceptions to this rule. An example of heresay is:
Q: What did Mrs. Smith tell you that the Defendant said to her?
(you would object at this point as the answer calls for heresay. The defendant has the right to have Mrs. Smith present to testify as to what the defendant admitted to her)

3) Objection: leading the witness. Note: In some cases it is perfectly ok to lead the witness, but generally not on direct examination. Leading the witness means that the questioner provides the answer and/or the clue to the answer that they want in their question.

As far as the remainder of criminal and civil procedure, I suggest that you look on the internet for basic information on civil and criminal procedure. Good luck