Talk:Objection (law)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject icon This article was selected as Today's article for improvement on 30 September 2013 for a period of one week. WikiProject icon
 

The characterization of the "argumentative" objection is incorrect. This is defined by Black as "A faulty form of examination of witness by propounding a question which suggests answer in a manner favorable to party who advances the question or which contains a statement in place of a question."

In other words, no one is arguing with a witness - the lawyer is making her closing argument (in the form of a question) at an improper point in the proceedings.


This entire entry is a direct copy of this web page: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/405/405lect08.htm 216.80.126.215 02:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)KLS

What about withdrawing? On TV, instead of overruled or sustained, often the other lawyer will say "withdrawn," as if they agree with the objection. 206.162.195.126 (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Objections also apply to discovery[edit]

This article is incorrect by implying that objections are solely a trial tactic. Objections can be raised in writing in response to discovery and orally at depositions. --Coolcaesar 08:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So fix it! I'm not a lawyer, but I wrote the article mostly based on the references given, which solely talked about objections in trials, not in discovery or deposition. DHowell 06:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide view[edit]

Well, is it a term/practice used in other countries? I didn't add the tag, but it would have been nice for the person that did to explain themselves.--SeizureDog 03:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in my jurisdiction. Depending on the formality of the setting, there's no particular procedure for objecting to something that is being done in court. If, as would generally be unlikely, an opponent is asking a question that would lead to inadmissible evidence, I might suggest to the judge something along the lines of "I don't believe my learned friend wants to ask that question", but that would only be at the highest level of formality. In the vast majority of hearings and trials there is only a judge as finder of fact and the judge feels perfectly able to disregard evidence that would not be admissible (and so on) and so will only pay slight attention to what counsel might have to say on the matter. Even with a jury, the process is far less formal. There is no "record" in the USian sense (although proceedings may be recorded and a transcript produced), which perhaps makes a difference. Really its a totally alien practice. Francis Davey 11:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: the above commenter's jurisdiction is England and Wales. Thought that worth mentioning, as he doesn't actually say! 86.149.133.230 (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting. Objections are so prevalent in U.S. courtroom procedure that popular culture would have us believe that the practice is prevalent everywhere. As an example, I was recently watching a rerun of an episode of the U.S. TV series JAG, "People v. SecNav", which had the Secretary of the Navy on trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Court, and "objections" were thrown around by both sides, including by the prosecutor, who was French if I recall correctly. I suspect, however, that this TV episode did not reflect the realities of international courtroom procedure. DHowell 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity[edit]

"Eventually most lawyers and judges came to recognize that exceptions were a waste of time." is certainly not a concrete statement, and is therefore not worthy of addition to an article. I have removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.0.71 (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And I am countermanding that deletion. Most ABA-accredited law schools teach their students in Evidence courses that exceptions were abolished in federal practice and in most states because they were a waste of time. Only a few states (e.g. North Carolina) are foolish enough to retain such a hypertechnical excuse for appellate courts to evade the hard questions presented in appeals. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)