Name That Objection
A witness says, “I heard that the defendant stole the money,” but the witness did not see the theft happen.
Hearsay
A witness testifies, “My friend told me that she saw the defendant run away,” to prove the defendant ran away.
Hearsay (unless an exception or exclusion applies)
During direct examination, an attorney asks, “You saw the blue car at 8 p.m., correct?”
Leading question on direct examination
An attorney asks a witness to guess what another person was thinking during the alleged crime.
Speculation / lack of personal knowledge
An attorney asks a question that has already been answered several times.
Asked and answered / relevance depending on context
An attorney asks a witness, “You were angry at the defendant that night, weren’t you?” when there is no evidence the witness was angry.
Relevance / improper argumentative question
A witness testifies, “I saw the defendant run away,” describing something personally observed.
No objection on hearsay grounds; the witness has personal knowledge
During cross-examination, an attorney asks, “You were standing across the street, weren’t you?”
Generally no objection: leading questions are usually permitted on cross-examination
An attorney asks a witness to give an opinion about a subject requiring specialized scientific knowledge, but the witness has no relevant expertise.
Lack of qualification; improper lay opinion
An attorney asks a witness a question that assumes an unproven fact: “When did you stop hiding the stolen phone?”
Assumes facts not in evidence
A witness says, “The defendant is a dishonest person,” but the question concerns whether the defendant committed a specific theft.
Improper character evidence or lack of relevance
A witness testifies that the defendant said, “I took the laptop,” and the prosecution offers the statement against the defendant.
Generally not hearsay when offered against the opposing party as their own statement
During direct examination, an attorney asks, “What color was the car?”
No objection: an open-ended, non-leading question
An attorney tries to introduce a photograph but provides no evidence that it accurately depicts the scene.
Lack of authentication
A witness begins discussing an unrelated argument that happened months before the alleged crime.
Relevance; potentially nonresponsive testimony
An attorney asks, “Where were you, what did you see, and why did you leave?” all in one question.
Compound question
A witness testifies, “Someone told me the store was closed,” to prove the store was closed.
Hearsay (unless an exception or exclusion applies)
During direct examination, an attorney asks, “Isn’t it true that you changed your story after speaking with the police?”
Leading question on direct examination
An attorney asks a witness to identify a suspect in court, but the witness has no personal knowledge of who committed the crime.
Lack of personal knowledge / improper identification foundation
An attorney asks a question that invites the witness to speculate about what would have happened under different circumstances.
Speculation
An attorney asks a witness to describe a conversation that has no connection to the events being tried.
Relevance
A witness testifies that a victim shouted, “That man has a knife!” immediately after seeing someone approach with a knife. The statement is offered to explain what the victim perceived.
Potentially an excited utterance or another applicable hearsay exception; the purpose and circumstances matter
An attorney asks their own witness a leading question after the witness repeatedly gives unexpected answers. What might the attorney request, and what must the judge consider?
The attorney may request permission to treat the witness as hostile; the judge decides whether to allow leading questions under the applicable rules
An attorney offers a document as proof of what it says but cannot establish what the document is or where it came from.
Lack of authentication / foundation
An attorney makes a valid objection, but the opposing attorney argues that the evidence is important. Who decides whether it is admissible, and what should the objecting attorney do after stating the objection?
The judge rules on admissibility. The attorney should state a concise, specific legal ground for the objection and follow the judge’s ruling.