Objections
Objections are a crucial aspect of the legal trial process, enabling attorneys to challenge the admissibility of evidence and the appropriateness of questions posed by opposing counsel. Attorneys can raise objections to various forms of evidence, including witness testimony and physical evidence, as well as during questioning. Common grounds for objections include claims that questions are irrelevant, prejudicial, or beyond a witness's knowledge. When an objection is made, the presiding judge must rule on it, either sustaining the objection—indicating it has merit—or overruling it, which allows the questioning or evidence to proceed. If an objection is sustained, the judge may instruct the opposing attorney to modify their approach, while an overruled objection lets them continue as before. In some situations, judges may withhold immediate rulings on objections, opting instead for a side-bar conference to discuss the legal implications outside the jury's presence. This process is integral to maintaining fairness and proper conduct during trials, reflecting the legal system's commitment to due process.
On this Page
Objections
SIGNIFICANCE: The ability to object during trials gives attorneys a means to alert judges that they believe statements or procedures should not be permitted.
During the trial process, attorneys can verbally object to the admission of evidence into the proceedings. That evidence may include oral testimony, physical evidence, or the types of questions being asked by opposing attorneys. If the latter, attorneys may raise their objections after questions are asked but before they are answered. They may object on the grounds that the questions are irrelevant, immaterial, prejudicial, or call for witnesses to speak on subjects about which they have no direct knowledge.
Once an objection is made, the judge rules on it. The judge may decide to sustain the objection or overrule it. A judge who sustains an objection is stating that the objection itself has merit. In such a case, the offending attorney may be instructed to rephrase a question or discontinue a behavior, such as being rude or harsh to a witness. A judge who decides that an objection lacks merit will overrule it and allow the other attorney to continue as before. Occasionally, there are instances in which a judge does not make an immediate ruling on an objection. In some instances, the judge may require the attorneys to argue the legal point outside the presence of the jury, in what is known as a side-bar conference.
Bibliography
Neubauer, David W., and Henry F. Fradella. America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System, 13th ed. Cengage, 2018.
"Objection." Cornell Law School, September 2023, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/objection. Accessed 8 July 2024.
Rabe, Gary A., and Dean John Champion. Criminal Courts: Structure, Process, and Issues, 4th ed. Pearson, 2017.