Objections 1
Only information related to the issue at hand is allowed. What rule is this?
Relevancy
Witnesses can’t give long, unfocused answers.
Narration
On direct, questions can’t suggest the answer.
Leading Question
"My friend told me the defendant did it."
Hearsay
Before evidence is discussed, the lawyer must explain where it came from.
Foundation
Evidence about a person’s character can only be used if it’s directly tied to truthfulness or credibility.
Character Evidence
A witness says, “I think the defendant wanted to steal.” What objection fits?
Speculation
On direct, witnesses can only talk about what they personally saw or know.
Scope of Witness Examination (Direct)
A business record like a police report used as evidence.
Not Hearsay (Business Records Exception)
“I think the defendant probably meant to steal the wallet, even if he says he didn’t.”
Speculation
This rule says you can’t use someone’s past bad acts to prove they acted the same way again.
Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts
Non-experts can’t give professional conclusions.
Opinion Testimony by Non-Expert
On cross, attorneys may only ask about topics covered on direct.
Scope of Witness Examination (Cross)
A person shouts, “He’s running the red light!” while watching a crash.
Not Hearsay (Present Sense Impression)
“Well, I think the company violated several safety regulations based on my research.”
Opinion Testimony by Non-Expert
A witness mentions something unrelated, like what the defendant ate for breakfast. What objection applies?
Relevance
A witness invents details not in their affidavit.
Invention of Facts
A lawyer keeps asking the same question after it’s been answered.
Asked and Answered
I heard the defendant say "I'm going to kill you!"
Not Hearsay (Admission of a Party Opponent)
“Where were you on the night of the robbery, and why didn’t you call the police?”
Compound Question
A lawyer says “The defendant robbed a store last year, so they probably did it again.” What rule is broken?
Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts
An expert witness testifies about something outside their specialty.
Opinion Testimony by Expert
A lawyer asks, “You saw the defendant enter and steal the money, right?” What two objections apply?
Compound Question & Leading Question
Hermione is on trial for setting Snape's robes on fire, which she claims to have done to protect Harry. To argue that she acted in defense of others, Hermione must have believed that Snape was going to kill Harry. In order to prove what Hermione believed at the time, the defense calls Ron as a witness. Ron testifies: "I saw Hermione set Snape on fire. But right before she did it, she told me, 'Snape is trying to kill Harry!'"
Not Hearsay (State of Mind)
Hermione's statement is not offered to prove that Snape was indeed trying to kill Harry, but rather to show that Hermione had the right mental state for a defense-of-others defense - that she believed Snape posed a danger to Harry.
Attorney Question:
“You were standing near the crime scene, weren’t you?”
Witness: “Yes, and then I saw the whole thing happen, and then I ran home and told my mom, and then she called the police, and then—”
Narration