Types of objections
There is nothing more stereotypically tied to the legal profession than a lawyer standing up in a courtroom and yelling “I object!” to protest something that the other side’s attorney is trying to admit to the evidence and the record. The practice is featured on most legal shows and was even featured in Elle Woods’ video admissions essay for Harvard Law on “Legally Blonde.”
Although it has been romanticized and presented in a multitude of media, the objection is the key weapon of the lawyer or solicitor to prevent the evidence from reaching the record or reaching the ears of the jury. Once it reaches the ears of the jury, it is much more difficult to remove any influence the objectionable evidence may have.
Before continuing, there are different types of objections. Regardless of the type of objection a lawyer raises, it is almost always true that the lawyer will have to go beyond simply objecting and saying or arguing why the evidence is objectionable in the first place. Once the objection and its rationale have been raised, the party wishing to include the evidence has an opportunity to say why the evidence is so vital. The judge is then given the task of admitting or denying the evidence.
The first type of objection is the “substantive” objection. The substantive objections rest on some particular principles of exclusion in the rules of evidence. These rules may be from the Federal Rules of Evidence or a state version of similar rules. In any event, the objection is based on a principle of exclusion from a real rule. An example of a substantive objection would be filing an objection based on hearsay. Others include attorney-client privilege, character evidence rules, and “subsequent corrective action.”
Formal objections are not based on a rule of evidence. They are objections raised because something is wrong with the way the witness is questioned. This could be that the attorney is arguing, harassing the witness, asking the same question repeatedly, or any of a number of different things that are considered bad manners.
Another type of formal objection may have to do with leading questions offered by the attorney. Leading questions are questions in which the attorney “guides” the witness during cross-examination. The problem with leading questions is that they suggest that the attorney is telling his own story, rather than letting the witness tell what happened. Putting words in the mouth of a witness is a practice frowned upon.
The last type of objection is the general objection. This type of objection offers less protection to the attorney’s client than the other types, but is still useful. It can stall the trial long enough for the attorney to figure out exactly what he wants to object to and make an argument in his head.