Objections of Form
Opposing counsel asks their witness on direct examination, "So you went to the house on December 20th?" This is the objection.
Leading
Evidence of this character trait is always admissible via reputation or opinion.
Character for untruthfulness.
This is the description of hearsay exception 803(3)
Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition.
This is the rule defining the qualifications for expert testimony.
702
This is the rule requiring the need for personal knowledge for witness testimony.
602
Badgering
This rule lays out the rules for impeaching a witness's character for truthfulness with evidence of a prior criminal conviction.
609
This is the Rule Against Hearsay
802
This rule states experts can rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence for their conclusions.
703
"Cumulative" is an objection under this rule.
Rule 403
If a witness is going on and rambling for a long, long time, this is the objection.
Narrative
This is the rule stating that evidence of Habit and Routine is admissible to prove action and conformity therewith.
406
This rule states that if a hearsay statement is admitted, opposing counsel is allowed to bring in evidence to attack the declarant of the statement's credibility by admitting a prior inconsistent hearsay statement.
806
These are the prongs of rule 702 that qualify an expert to testify to their conclusions.
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
This is the rule usually described as "Best Evidence"
On cross-examination, opposing counsel asks, "You went to store, you bought eggs, and you shot the victim, right?" This is the objection
Compound
This is the objection if opposing counsel offers evidence of a character's truthfulness when that character had never been attacked by your side.
Improper Bolstering
This is the description of hearsay exception 803(15).
Statements in Documents That Affect an Interest in Property.
Experts can testify to any opinion on the ultimate issue of the case except this one.
Whether the defendant in a criminal case did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense.
This is the difference between rules 401 and 402.
This is the rule that doesn't allow leading questions on direct examination.
611(c)
Evidence of a criminal conviction from over 10 years ago is admissible if these conditions are met, pursuant to Rule 609(b)
(1) its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect; and
(2) the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest its use.
This is the hearsay exception for statements made against the declarant's interest.
804(b)(3)
This is the description of Rule 705
An expert may state an opinion – and give the reasons for it – without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination.
These are the differences between a lack of personal knowledge, speculation, and lack of foundation objection.
Lack of Foundation: The witness could know, but adequate foundation that they know has not been laid.
Lack of Personal Knowledge: They weren't there/weren't a part of something, so they have no way to testify to anything about it.
Speculation: They are intruding on the mindset of someone— testifying to something they could not possibly know.