VOIR DIRE
OPENING
DIRECT EXAM.
CROSS EXAM.
CLOSING
100

During jury selection counsel for the Commonwealth says:  Does everyone understand that "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't mean beyond "any" doubt?  You just have to use your common sense.  Objection?

Yes!  Counsel cannot define "reasonable doubt".

Should you object?

How can you fix this question?

100

During opening, counsel for the Commonwealth says:  Imagine how you would feel if your child was on the wrong end of that gun in the Defendant's hand.  Objection?

YES!  Classic "golden rule" violation.

Should you object?

How can you fix this statement?

100

On direct examination, counsel for the Commonwealth asks TINA: You heard Billy say that he was "trigger happy" didn't you?  Objection?

YES! Leading.

Should you object?

How can you fix that question?

100

On cross examination, counsel for the Defense asks TINA: Isn't true that you don't have any idea what happened after you left - correct?  Objection?

NO! But you and whoever taught your trial practice class should be ashamed!  This is a poorly worded statement made worse by ending it with the word "correct" in order to turn it into a question. Lazy. Stupid. Annoying.

How can you fix this question?

100

During closing, counsel for the Defense says:  Think about the stupid thing you or your friends or you and your friends did when you were Billy and Rick's age - something that you can clearly see as dangerous now but didn't appreciate as dangerous back then.  Objection?

YES!  Classic "golden rule" violation.

Should you object?

How do you fix the statement?

200

During voir dire, counsel for the Defense says: If you find Billy guilty of murder, you understand that he will spend the next 20 years of his life in prison?  Objection?

Yes!  Misleading.  Misstatement of the law.

Should you object?

How can you fix this question?

200

During opening, counsel for the Defense says: Billy could not be more sorry for what happened, and there's no way Rick would want his best friend to go to prison for the next 20 years what amounts to a terrible accident.  Objection?

YES!   Improper comment on what the proof will show and on the penal consequences of a guilty verdict.

Should you object?

How do you fix this statement?

200

On direct examination, counsel for the Defense asks BILLY:  Have you ever been in trouble with the law before?Objection?

MAYBE!  Relevance.  BUT arguably, while the Commonwealth may not introduce evidence of the Defendant's character, the Defendant can.

Should you object?  

200

On cross examination, counsel for the Commonwealth asks BILLY: Didn't you tell the police that the gun was empty when you were just "showing" it to Rick Fenton and that it "went off" because you were afraid to tell them the truth?  Objection?

YES!  Technically it is a compound question, but the real problem is that it does not accurately quote or adequately paraphrase what Billy said.

Should you object?

How can you fix this question?

200

During closing, counsel for the Commonwealth says: While you are deliberating about what to do here, I want you to remember that Rick's mother will never celebrate another birthday with her son, or see him graduate college, get married, become a father. Remember her pain!  Objection?

YES!  Inflammatory.  Statements intended to or having the effect of "inflaming the passions of the jury" are improper.

Should you object?

How can you fix this statement?

300

During jury selection counsel for the Commonwealth says: In Kentucky murder doesn't have to be "premeditated", or "intentional", it can even be "unintentional".  Is there anyone who couldn't in good conscience convict someone of a "murder" he didn't intend to commit?  Objection?

Maybe!  If the judge is going to let you talk about the law during voir dire, what you say had best be exactly right! 

Should you object?

How can you fix this question?

300

During opening, counsel for the Commonwealth says: I know the facts.  I know the law. Soon you will too.  And once you hear everything, I know that you will know, just like I do, that the Defendant is guilty.  Objection?

YES!  It is improper to offer your personal opinion about the facts or the law.

Should you object?

How do you fix this statement?

300

On direct examination, counsel for the Commonwealth asks the Police Officer:  What did Billy tell you he thought might happen when he pulled the trigger on the gun?  Objection?

NO!  What Billy said to the police is not hearsay even if it is offered by the Commonwealth for the truth of the matter asserted.

Should you object?

How can you improve this question?

300

On cross examination, counsel for the Defense asks the MEDICAL EXAMINER: How drunk was Rick when he and Billy were playing with the gun?  Objection?

YES!  Form of the question.  Assumes facts not in evidence.

Should you object?

How do you fix this question?

300

During closing, counsel for the Defense says: Putting Billy in prison won't bring Rick back or keep other 21 year old boys from doing the kind of stupid things 21 years old boys do to amuse themselves or impress 21 year old girls and have done since God invented 21 year old boys.  Objection?

YES!  Relevance.  Considerations as to possible penal consequences may not enter into the jury's deliberations during the guilt phase of the trial.

Should you object?

How can you fix this statement?

400

During jury selection counsel for the Defense says: Your honor, Juror No. 22 is a retired police officer ... move to strike him for cause.  Objection?

Yes.  This fact, standing alone, does not provide reasonable grounds to believe that this juror cannot render a fair and impartial verdict.

Should you object?                     What should counsel have asked?

400

During opening, counsel for the Defense says: My client did not act intentionally, wantonly, or recklessly. This was UNintentional.  This was accidental. This was not criminal.  Objection? 

MAYBE!  This is arguably argument and, depending on the judge, may be frowned upon.

Should you object?

How can you fix this statement?


400

On direct examination, counsel for the Defense asks BILLY:  Did Ricky say anything to you that made you think that it was safe to pull the trigger?  Objection?

MAYBE?  It sounds like a leading question even though it probably isn't.  Some judges might sustain the objection.

Should you object?

How can you improve that question?

400

On cross examination, counsel for the Commonwealth asks BILLY: What did Jennifer think about what you were doing when she saw you point the gun at Rick's chest and pull the trigger?  Objection?

YES!  Billy cannot testify about what Jennifer was thinking.

Should you object?

How do you fix this question?

400

During closing, counsel for the Commonwealth says: Being sorry that Rick is dead is not a defense to killing him.  Objection?

NO!  Fair comment on the evidence even if the defense never explicitly said that being "sorry" was a defense.

Should you object?

How could you address this proactively?

500

During voir dire, counsel for the Defense asks: Who here is 21 or younger?  Who here has a hard time remembering what it was like to be 21 or younger?  Do you think you're the same person now, that you were then?  Objection?

Maybe!  It depends on whether the judge thinks the answer to this question is relevant.

Should you object?

How can you fix this question?

500

During opening, counsel for the Commonwealth says: You won't be hearing from the victim. He won't be here to tell you the truth about what the Defendant did, so you will have to sort through all of the Defendant's lies without him - actually you'll have to do that for him. Objection?

MAYBE!  Arguably argument which, depending on the judge, can be frowned upon.

Should you object?

How do you fix this statement?

500

On direct examination, counsel for the Commonwealth asks the FIREARMS EXPERT:  Shouldn't you treat every gun like it's loaded?  Objection?

YES!  Beyond the scope of the expert's written report.

Should you object?

How can you fix this question?

500

On cross examination, counsel for the Defense asks the POLICE OFFICER: Isn't it true that if a police officer is involved in a shooting, he gets to wait forty-eight hours before the investigating officers get to interview him about what happened? Objection?

MAYBE!  Relevance?  Misleading?

Should you object?

How can you fix this question?

500

During closing, counsel for the DEFENSE says:  The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove each and every element of crime of murder, if you have a doubt as to any of these elements then you have no choice but to find Billy NOT guilty.  Objection?

YES!  Incorrectly states what the Commonwealth's burden of proof is.

Should you object?

How do you fix this statement?