Objection! Explain Why
An attorney asks a witness, “You agree the defendant is guilty because you dislike him, right?”
Argumentative / improper questioning
A witness says, “I think the car was traveling about 90 miles per hour,” but admits they only saw it for a second from far away.
Speculation / lack of personal knowledge or sufficient basis for the estimate
During cross-examination, an attorney asks, “You were at the scene that night, weren't you?”
Generally no objection: leading questions are usually permitted on cross-examination
An attorney offers a text message into evidence but cannot show who sent it.
Authentication / foundation
An attorney asks a question that has already been asked and answered several times.
Asked and answered
A witness begins describing what a neighbor supposedly saw, even though the neighbor is not testifying.
Hearsay, unless an exclusion or exception applies
A witness testifies about a conversation they personally heard between two people.
Generally no hearsay objection if the witness personally heard the conversation; relevance may still matter
During direct examination, an attorney asks, “What did you see when you entered the room?”
Generally no objection: an open-ended question on direct examination
An attorney shows a witness a photograph and asks them to confirm that it accurately depicts the crime scene.
Generally no objection if the witness can authenticate the photograph and it is relevant
An attorney asks two unrelated questions in one sentence, making it unclear which one the witness should answer.
Compound question
An attorney asks a witness to describe an event that happened years before the incident, with no apparent connection to the case.
Relevance
A witness is asked to explain what a medical term means, but they have no medical training.
Lack of qualification / improper expert opinion
An attorney asks a witness to repeat a statement made by the defendant that is offered against the defendant.
Generally no hearsay objection if it is the opposing party's own statement offered against them
An attorney tries to introduce a witness's written statement but does not explain how the statement was created or verified.
Authentication / inadequate foundation; additional hearsay concerns may apply depending on the use
An attorney asks a witness to guess what the defendant intended to do based only on the defendant's facial expression.
Speculation / lack of personal knowledge
An attorney asks, “Did you see the defendant take the wallet?” The witness says yes, but the attorney has provided no information showing the witness could see the event.
Lack of personal knowledge / inadequate foundation
A witness gives an answer that goes far beyond the question and begins discussing unrelated events.
Nonresponsive testimony; the attorney may move to strike the nonresponsive portion
An attorney asks a witness, “When did you stop lying to the police?”
Assumes facts not in evidence; argumentative
An attorney presents a broken window as evidence but cannot establish that the item came from the location in question.
Authentication / foundation
An attorney repeatedly interrupts a witness before the witness can finish answering.
The judge may direct counsel to allow the witness to finish; repeated interruptions may warrant judicial intervention
An attorney asks a witness to agree with a conclusion that the evidence has not established: “So the defendant planned the entire crime in advance, correct?”
Assumes facts not in evidence; potentially argumentative
A witness says, “I know the defendant committed the robbery because he looks like the kind of person who would do it.”
Improper character reasoning / relevance
During direct examination, an attorney asks their own witness a leading question about a preliminary, undisputed detail.
Usually no objection if it concerns a preliminary or undisputed matter; leading questions may be allowed in this situation
An attorney offers a document to prove the truth of a statement inside it, and the document contains another person's out-of-court statement.
Hearsay within hearsay; each layer needs its own applicable exclusion or exception
An attorney makes a valid objection, the judge sustains it, and opposing counsel immediately asks the witness the same question again without changing it. What should happen next?
The judge should enforce the ruling. Counsel should not repeat a question that has been excluded without a proper basis to revisit it.