Objections
Objection applies if a witness creates a material fact not included in his or her official record. A material fact is one that would likely impact the outcome of the case.
Unfair Extrapolation
Objection based on the notion that witnesses cannot answer questions properly if they do not understand the questions or is to broad.
Vague and Ambiguous Questions
Suggests the answer desired. Permitted during cross-examination.
Leading Question
What's an example of State of Mind Hearsay Exception?
Witness on the stand describes a conversation they had with a best friend.
Example: Katie described the details to her best friend Sarah, about her bad marriage to Samuel. When Katie was testifying under oath at trial, she explained the conversation and the defense attorney objected to hearsay. The judged overruled the objection because Katie met the state of mind exception.
Objection where sometimes a witness’s reply is vague, or the witness purposely does not answer the attorney’s question.
Non-responsive Witness
Evidence is _______________ if it has any tendency to make a fact that is important to the case more or less probable than the fact would be without the evidence.
Relevance
if he or she has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a subject sufficiently beyond common experience.
An expert witness may give an opinion based on professional experience if the expert’s opinion would assist the trier of fact (judge) in resolving an issue relevant to the case.
Expert Witness
a question that has previously been asked and answered. This can seriously inhibit the effectiveness of a trial.
Asked and Answered
WHAT IS THIS EXAMPLE OF?
On direct examination, the prosecution attorney asks, “Did the defendant stop at the stop sign?” The witness answers, “No, he did not.” Then, because it is a helpful fact, the direct examining attorney asks again, “So the defendant didn’t stop at the stop sign?”
Asked and Answered
If an attorney asks questions beyond the issues raised on cross-examination, opposing counsel may object to them.
Outside the Scope of Cross-Examination
its admission creates substantial danger of undue prejudice, confuses the issues, wastes time, or misleads the trier of fact (judge).
More Prejudicial than Probative
Evidence of a person’s personal traits or personality tendencies (e.g., honest, violent, greedy, dependable, etc.). As a general rule, character evidence is inadmissible when offered to prove that a person acted in accordance with his or her character trait(s) on a specific occasion.
Character Evidence
Joins two alternatives with “and” or “or,” preventing the interrogation of a witness from being as rapid, distinct, or effective for finding the truth as is reasonably possible.
Compound Question
Rephrase this leading question “During the conversation on March 8, didn’t the defendant make a threatening gesture?”
“What, if anything, did the defendant do during your conversation on March 8?”
Give me an example of a compound question
“Did you determine the point of impact from conversations with witnesses and from physical remarks, such as debris in the road?”
means that before a witness can testify about his or her personal knowledge or opinion of certain facts, it must be shown that the witness was in a position to know those facts in order to have personal knowledge of those facts or to form an admissible opinion.
Laying a Proper Foundation
Evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at trial and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. Hearsay is considered untrustworthy because the declarant (aka the speaker) of the out-of-court statement did not make the statement under oath and is not present in court to be cross-examined.
Hearsay Evidence
A question that challenges the witness about an inference from the facts in the case. The cross-examiner may not harass a witness, become accusatory toward a witness, unnecessarily interrupt the witness’s answer, or make unnecessary comments on the witness’s responses.
Argumentative Question/Badgering the witness
Rephrase this question:
“Did you determine the point of impact from conversations with witnesses and from physical remarks, such as debris in the road?”
Q1: “Did you determine the point of impact from conversations with witnesses?”
Q2: “Did you also determine the point of impact from physical marks in the road?”
Example of Leading Question
“During the conversation on March 8, didn’t the defendant make a threatening gesture?”
A witness may not testify about any matter of which the witness has no personal knowledge. Only if the witness has directly observed an event may the witness testify about it. Personal knowledge must be shown before a witness may testify concerning a matter.
Personal Knowledge/Speculation
__________ is inadmissible because the witness is not testifying to facts. ____________ is admissible only when it is (a) rationally based upon the perception of the witness (five senses) and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his or her testimony.
Opinion Testimony (Testimony from Non-Experts)
A question is too general and calls for the witness in essence to “tell a story” or give a broad and unspecific response.
Narrative
Rephrase this question to avoid an objection.
“During the conversation on March 8, didn’t the defendant make a threatening gesture?”
“What, if anything, did the defendant do during your conversation on March 8?”
3 Exceptions to Character Evidence
1) Defendant’s own character: The defense may offer evidence of the defendant’s own character (in the form of opinion or evidence of reputation) to prove that the defendant acted in accordance with his or her character on a specific occasion (where the defendant’s character is inconsistent with the acts of which he or she is accused).
2) Victim’s character: The defense may offer evidence of the victim’s character (in the form of opinion, evidence of reputation, or specific instances of conduct) to prove the victim acted in accordance with his or her own character on a specific occasion (where the victim’s character would tend to prove the innocence of the defendant).
3) Witness’s character: Evidence of a witness’s character for dishonesty (in the form of opinion, evidence of reputation, or specific instances of conduct) is admissible to attack the witness’s credibility. If a witness’s character for honesty has been attacked by the admission of bad character evidence, then the opposing party may rebut by presenting good character evidence (in the form of opinion, evidence of reputation, or specific instances of conduct) of the witness’s truthfulness.