What's the objection?
Opposing counsel asks on direct: "EZ-flight has a flaw, doesn't it?
Objection: Leading question.
Opposing counsel offers the text messages between Bryce and Jo into evidence.
Objection! Everything in this exhibit is hearsay both the texts Bryce sent, and the texts Jo sent and is inadmissible.
Opposing counsel objects to hearsay while you're attempting to enter the weather report into evidence.
Your honor, this exhibit falls under the records of a regular conducted business activity exception to hearsay and is admissible.
Exception to hearsay objection when entering Fisher Street's NTSB Report
Record of Regularly Conducted Business Activity
BONUS: Expert witness can rely on hearsay to come to their conclusion which is outlined in this report.
Opposing counsel asks: "Why did you do that and why is that important?"
Opposing counsel asks Sandy Kay whether Bryce was a good pilot
Objection! Improper opinion - Sandy is not an expert and cannot testify to his opinion regarding Bryce's competency as a pilot.
On cross, opposing counsel asks: "You would have been able to override EZ-flight, wouldn't you?"
Objection: Calls for speculation.
Opposing counsel attempts to enter River Lynch's report while questioning Jo Harrelson.
Objection! Lack of personal knowledge, lack of foundation, hearsay.
Exception to Rule 403 relevance - more prejudicial than probative objection to photograph of the crash site
The bar for relevance is extremely low and this photograph is not prejudicial because it does not depict a violent scene that would prejudice the jury in any way, it is probative to show the jury the outcome of the flight and why it was so difficult to investigate as the plane is completely destroyed.
Exception to a hearsay objection when entering text messages between Bryce Harrelson and Jo Harrelson
Messages between Bryce and Jo are statements by party opponents and therefore admissible.
On direct, opposing counsel asks: "You just told us about your education, aren't you a pilot too?"
Objection! Leading question!
Opposing counsel asks Jo Harrelson: Was Shell Alonso is a better co-pilot than Dale Hamilton
Objection: Lack of foundation AND improper opinion, opposing cousel has not laid any foundation to show that Jo Harrelson would know who was a better co-pilot and she is not an expert and cannot state her opinion as a lay witness on this matter.
BONUS: Response?
You are the crossing attorney, you ask a question and the witness says: "I think Bryce would have told his code to his co-pilot that day."
Objection: Your honor, the witness is speculating.
Opposing counsel begins asking the witness about what was said in the text messages between Bryce and Shell after they have already been entered into evidence.
No objection! If they're already entered, any witness can testify to them.
Opposing counsel objects to your witness testifying about what Bryce Harrelson said prior to the flight arguing that it is hearsay.
If you are on the Defense: Statement by a party opponent exception to hearsay.
If you are on the Plaintiff: These statements are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but rather the effect on the listener.
Opposing counsel objects to hearsay while you are offering the Pre-flight checklist into evidence.
Your honor, this pre-flight checklist is a record of a regularly conducted business activity and falls under the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Opposing counsel asks Jo: "You are the real reason your husband is dead because you were distracting him during his EZ-flight training, aren't you?"
Objection! Argumentative! This question is asking the witness to agree to a conclusion without eliciting any new facts as Ms. Harrelson has already admitted that Bryce was texting her during training.
Opposing counsel asks: "We know that Dale Hamilton was the one who improperly typed in the override PIN, don't we?"
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. Nothing in the record has established that any witness knew whether it was Bryce Harrelson or Dale Hamilton who attempted to override EZ-flight.
On cross, opposing counsel asks the witness: "What did you say to Bryce while he was in training for EZ-flight?"
Objection: This question calls for hearsay.
On cross, opposing counsel asks: "You know exactly what happened in the cockpit that day, don't you?"
No objection! They're not asking the witness to speculate, they're asking whether they know what happened. There's also no objection to leading question, its cross, they're allowed to lead!
Opposing counsel makes a leading question objection during your direct examination.
Your Honor, I'll rephrase...
Who, what, when where, why, how ... ?
Opposing counsel objects to hearsay and speculation when Shell Alonso talks about Bryce Harrelson asking him what the override PIN was.
Your honor, as to the hearsay, the statement Mr. Alonso is testifying to is actually a question and is therefore not hearsay as it is not offered for the proof of the matter asserted. Additionally, even if it was a statement, it is being offered for its effect on the listener, Mr. Alonso, rather than the proof of the matter asserted.
As to the speculation objection, Mr. Alonso is allowed to testify to his rationally based perception of the incident he is describing, he does not have to speculate to inform us what he thought when this event occurred.
On cross, opposing counsel asks: "You are a pilot who was educated at an aviation school and has multiple doctrates that lead you to become an investigator who investigates place accidents accross the united states but you just happened to investigate this accident which occurred on April 16, 2021, then you came here to testify for the plaintiffs because you think it was Forrester Flight Company's fault that flight X1027 crashed, correct?"
Objection! Ambiguous question! Compound question! Your honor, I ask that opposing counsel break down that inquiry so my witness can understand and address each aspect opposing counsel is asking about.
Opposing counsel asks: Has Bryce ever asked for his PIN code from a co-pilot before?
HINT: Assume the judge has already overruled your hearsay objection to this question.
Objection! Your honor, this is improper character evidence. If I may proffer, I believe the witness is about to testify that Bryce previously asked his co-pilot to tell him his PIN code and suggest that Bryce could not recall the code. This is being offered to show that because it happened once, Bryce forgot his PIN again and is inadmissible under the local rules governing character evidence.
On direct, opposing counsel asks: "What happened next?" and the witness answers, "Bryce asked me what his PIN code was, it seemed like he didn't know, I'm not sure if he was quizing me but I really think he didn't know his code."
On direct, opposing counsel says: "Was Bryce Harrelson licensed to drive a car in the state of South Carolina?"
Objection: Relevance! Whether Bryce could drive a car is not a fact at issue in todays case and is not probative of any material fact to this case.
BONUS: Response?
You are attempting to impeach a witness but when you ask for permission to approach the witness with their affidavit, opposing counsel objects and says: "Improper impeachment, this witness said this in their affidavit and cannot be impeached."
Your Honor, may I be heard?
I have yet to have the opportunity to impeach the witness, I merely asked to approach the witness with their affidavit to verify their previous testimony on the stand, which is permissible in this jurisdiction.
Exception to try and enter Bryce Harrelson's EZ-flight quiz into evidence when opposing counsel objects to hearsay:
Your honor, if opposing counsel is objecting to the quiz questions, these are not hearsay as they are questions rather than statements which could be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted within them.
As to Bryce Harrelson's responses to those questions, those are statements by a party opponent.
BONUS: What other exceptions could you argue?
On direct, opposing counsel asks: "Did you train the pilots to override EZ-flight even though you knew they weren't paying attention?"
Objection: Leading!
On re-cross, opposing counsel asks: "On re-direct, opposing counsel asked you about what happened the day of the plane crash, but you didn't tell us what happened back when Bryce was training for EZ-flight. Isn't it true that Bryce wasn't paying attention during training?"
Objection! Outside the scope of re-direct. In this jurisdiction, re-cross is limited to the scope of re-direct and I did not ask anything about Bryce's training during my re-direct examination.