10 Grounds of Objections on Direct Examination

1. Leading Question

The question suggests the answer to the witness. Leading questions are
permitted if the attorney conducting the examination has received
permission to treat the witness as a hostile witness.

The case is a collection case. The defendant contends that the debt has
been paid. He calls a witness to testify the fact of payment.

Q: While the plaintiff and the defendant were engaged in a conversation

on the date and time you mentioned, did you see the defendant deliver
Php 50,000.00 to the plaintiff?

The question is objectionable on the ground that it is leading. Here, the

examiner obviously wants the witness to directly testify that money was
delivered by them could have been properly framed in this manner:
“What have you observed, if any, while the plaintiff and the defendant
were engaged in a conversation?”

2. Irrelevant or Immaterial Questions

The question asked of the witness is not about the issues in the trial.
This will result in questions and answers to go around in circles. Asking
irrelevant and immaterial questions will not only waste time of the courts
but it will also defeat the purpose of arriving at a judgment based on the
testimonial evidence.

3. Counsel is testifying

This objection is sometimes used when counsel is “leading” or

“argumentative” or “assumes facts not in evidence”. This may be likened
to a situation where the counsel asks leading questions so that the one
being examined may only answer a “yes” or a “no”.

4. Best Evidence
Used when the evidence being solicited is not the best source of
the information. Usually occurs when a witness is being asked a
question about a document that is available to be entered into evidence.
The document should be entered as proof of its contents.
5. Hearsay

A statement made out of this court offered in court to prove the truth
of the matter asserted. A statement is not hearsay if the words spoken
are relevant, not what the words mean. It is an evidence offered by a
witness in court to prove the truth of a fact, not based on his personal
knowledge, but on the knowledge of such person who is not in the
witness stand. The witness in testifying, asserts that the facts are true by
merely repeating in court what someone else has told him outside the
court.

Thus, if a witness testifies that it was indeed Mr. RR who robbed Mr.
VV because that is what Mr. WW told him the testimony of the witness is
hearsay and objectionable.

6. Improper Characterization

Used when a question or an answer describes something that is

highly prejudicial and not helpful to the judge. A typical example is
describing the defendant or her actions as “crazy.” This is a charged
word and has no real meaning unless the witness is a medical doctor
who actually means “crazy.” - It’s not a very useful objection most of the
time because the objection generally draws more attention to the word
and thus cements the idea into the mind of the judge. However, there
are three exceptions to this kind of character evidence is permissible:

a. If this evidence is offered by the defense and applied to the

character and actions of the defendant to prove innocence, it is
admissible.
b. If this evidence is offered by the defense and applied to the
character and actions of the victim to prove innocence, it is
admissible.
c. If this evidence is offered to show dishonesty or a tendency to lie by
any witness, it is admissible. In this situation, the opposing
counsel may rebut with positive character evidence to show the
contrary.

Example : “The defendant was always rude to me, and particularly

so on the day of the murder”

7. Speculation

The witness does not have first-hand knowledge of the fact she is
testifying to. This could be what someone else thought or why someone
did something. It could also include what would have happened had
occurred. Testifying as to what they believe may have happened, or about
another person’s state of mind, are all considered improper evidence. The
only exception in mock trial is that expert witnesses, or those who are
 called to the stand because of particular knowledge or experience, are
usually given greater exemption from this objection. It would not be
speculation for a signature authenticator to testify the defendant is guilty
of fraud based on that expert’s analysis and professional opinion.

Example : The witness hears a gunshot from around a corner,

runs and sees the victim dead, and the defendant holding a gun. The
following is speculation: “I believe the defendant shot the victim”.

8. Relevance

The evidence being solicited does not relate to merits of the case or
another admissible purpose such as foundation or permissible character
evidence. - This is not the same as “Irrelevancy” which is neither a real
objection nor a real word.

9. Argumentative

This is not an objection to opposing counsel making a good point. It is

used when the questioning attorney is not asking a question and is
instead making an argument of law or application of law that should be
argued in summation. It is only valid when the witness is not being
asked a question that he or she can properly answer.

10. Badgering

The counsel is antagonizing the witness to provoke a response, either by

asking questions without giving the witness an opportunity to answer or by
openly mocking the witness.