A Guide to Making

CORRECT Objections
During our Mock Trial

A question is ambiguous if it can be

misunderstood by the witness.

Example: "Did you see the girl with the

telescope?"

This question could mean: "Did you see

the girl who was holding the telescope?"

But it could also mean: "Did you see the

girl by using the telescope?"

A question may be objectionable on the grounds that

the witness has already answered a substantially similar
question asked by the same attorney on the same subject
matter.
Example:
Q: So, how big would you say the knife was?
A: It was a medium-sized pocket knife.
Q: Would you say that it was about five inches long then?
A: I cant say for sure.
Q: Would you say it was about this big?
A: Approximately, yes.
Q: So, about five inches then, to be precise, right?

The opposing team is asking questions in

such a way that is intimidating or
upsetting the speaker. Sometimes, this
objection is also called argumentative.
Example: Youre a pathological liar, arent
you?

A witness may not testify about the

reasons behind the actions of another or
offer a guess about the meaning that
should be attributed to the actions of
another.
Example: Do you think he did it because
he was jealous?
Better question: What were his facial
expressions like at this moment?

Witnesses should only testify as to what they

know from first hand personal experience. In
court, they are not usually allowed to repeat
what they heard someone else say.
Consider the principle behind the childrens
game, broken telephone.
Any evidence of a statement that was made by
someone who will not be testifying at the trial is
heresay, if that evidence is offered to show the
truth of a statement.

Hearsay

evidence is defined as:

(1) an out of Court assertion (a statement made

somewhere other than a courtroom)
(2) repeated in Court (by a witness)
(3) to prove the truth of that assertion.
All three elements must be present before a
question of hearsay arises. Elements (1) and (2)
are fairly straightforward. It is element (3) that
causes difficulty. Unless the statement is being
repeated to prove the truth of its contents, there
is no hearsay issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEu2O
3FGH1E&feature=related
Or, perhaps just to get a song stuck in your
head by some law students who clearly had too
much time on their hands.

If a statement is repeated in Court for a reason other than its truth,

the statement is admissible.
The leading case here is Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor
[1956] W.L.R. 965. An accused was charged with possessing illegal
ammunition and wanted to testify, in his defence, that he had been
forced to by guerillas who told him they were Communists and
would kill him if he did not co-operate. The question before the
Court was, is the repetition of what the guerrillas said hearsay? The
court said no, and this is because the truth of the statements, we
are Communists and will kill you if you dont co-operate is
irrelevant. They could be Royalists who would give him kudos for
refusing to help. The witness was not repeating the statement to
prove that the guerillas were in fact Communists, but rather, to
prove that he believed that they were.

The court considers the veracity (truth) of

whether or not a statement was made, not the
veracity of the statement itself.
Example: Ms. Bartok told me that the pizza
made her feel sick.
The statement can be allowed if the point is to
prove that she did, in fact, say that.
It should NOT be allowed if the point is to prove
that the pizza is, in fact, what made her sick.

Asking a witness for evidence not related to the

facts of the case at hand.
Example: Asking an eyewitness in a murder trial
about her favourite flavour of jelly bean.
Sometimes, a question may seem irrelevant at
first, but a lawyer may ask the judge for some
leeway in order to make a connection later on.

Asking a question in a way that suggests and

answer to the witness.
Example: So, is that when she hit him? OR
And then he fired the gun, isnt that true?
Non-leading questions are open-ended.
Example: So what happened next? OR Tell us
what you saw when you arrived.
REMEMBER: Leading the witness is NOT allowed
during direct examination but IS permitted (and,
in fact, is recommended) during cross.

Asking a witness to give evidence on a matter

when the witness has no expertise in that
particular area or field.
Example: Would you say those tire tracks were
consistent with those normally associated with
tires found on Buicks and Fords?
If asked to a mechanic who specializes in car
tires, this question is fine. Asked to anyone
else, it calls for an opinion which the witness is
not qualified to give.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo_u6
8K4uSo
This is the trailer for the moviebut if you
can rent it and just watch the scene where
actress Marissa Tomei is on the stand, it's
brilliant.

UNFAIR DEVIATION

Witnesses MUST admit to all information

contained on their profile sheet.
If they refuse to do so, or if they invent
information that could affect the outcome of the
trial, opposing counsel can call "unfair deviation"
The judge will then take a moment to review the
witness profile sheet, and instruct the witness
accordingly
Witnesses ARE allowed to make up minor details
about themselves (i.e., age, education, names of
siblings/children, etc.)

Wanna play a game?

http://www.texaslre.org/objection_your_honor/o
bjection_your_honor.html

This is based on American law, but it's similar

enough and pretty fun.

Or there's this "old school" game, which you can

download:

http://www.oldgames.com/download/4352/objection-

Thornton, Jo and Pegis, Jessica. Speaking with a Purpose:

A Practical Guide to Oral Advocacy. Print. Emond
Montgomery Publications. Toronto. 2005.
Websites:
http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.com/2009/04/hearsayobjections-and-voir-dire.html
http://www.duhaime.org/
http://mr_sedivy.tripod.com/usgov_9.html
http://criminaldefense.homestead.com/CondensedObject
ions.html
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/how-to-make-intrial-objections-less-obj-77499/