I was watching a court room drama the other night. Druing one of the court room scenes a lawyer objected to a question because it was argumentitive. Why is this objectionable? Isn’t the whole point of lawyering to argue?
Not directly. The point of lawyering is to bring out the facts so that the jury can render a decision. An argument is a connected series of statements, intended to establish a proposition.
Oh, sorry, did you want the five-minute argument or the ful half-hour?
When a witness is testifying, the lawyer is not supposed to be arguing. The purpose is to extract relevant testimony and for the jury to observe as the witness gives his or her testimony. The lawyer’s take on the testimony is not relevant at this point. The lawyer gets to argue as much as he or she wants at the beginning and at the end of the trial.
An argumentative question is where counsel states a conclusion and then asks the witness to argue with it, often in an attempt to get the witness to change their mind. Also known as “badgering” the witness.
Thank you Bob. That’s what I wanted to know.
Can you do it with a hostile witness? 
They probably wouldn’t let you get past second base. They are hostile after all, and I’ve not had too much luck with those girls…
You cannot ask argumentative questions of any witness, for the reasons previously mentioned: the official purpose of examining a witness is for the witness to give information to the jury (or to the judge if it is a bench trial) NOT to argue the case during witness examination.
But you are right that the rules for examining a hostile witness (you probably knew this already but “hostile” in this sense means “opposed to my side” not “angry”) are different from the rules for examining other witnesses. You still cannot ask “argumentative” questions, but you are allowed to ask “leading questions” of a hostile witness. A leading question is one that suggests the answer. (e.g. “in fact, Dr. Smith, you had never used this technique before you operated on my client, isn’t that right Dr. Smith?”) This type of question is only proper when directed to a hostile witness. An opposing party is automatically considered a hostile witness. Third parties may be treated as hostile, but this is up to the judge. The principle reason that an attorney asks the judge for “permission to treat Mr. X as a hostile witness,” is that it gives the attorney the chance to ask leading questions of a witness who would otherwise probably not give a straight answer.
A leading question often sounds “argumentative” in the everyday sense of “argumentative,” because it sounds like the way people talk when they are arguin’ with each other, but it is not necessarily “argumentative” in the legal sense if it is directed to facts that the witness knows (or does not know).
Example of a proper (i.e. non-argumentative, but leading) examination of a hostile witness:
Q: Now, Ms. Jones, you didn’t actually see the car go through the intersection did you?
A: I know that it went through before the light turned red.
Q: Ms. Jones, that wasn’t my question. My question was, you didn’t actually see the car go through the intersection, did you?
A: Like I said before, I am a very careful driver. I have never been in an accident in my life.
Q: Allright Ms. Jones, let me try again. My question was, you didn’t see the car go through the intersection, did you? That’s a yes or no question, and the answer to that question is, no, you did not see the car go through the intersection, isn’t that right?
Ms. Jones Attorney: objection, asked and answered, and argumentative she’s badgering the witness. [Note this objection is not well founded, and a decent attorney does not raise the objection in the hope that it will be sustained. But it still serves its purpose: to throw the questioning attorney off her rhythm and to give the witness a few moments to collect her thoughts]
Q: Your honor, I’m entitled to an answer to my question which relates to what the witness did or did not observe.
Judge: objection overruled.
Q: Now Ms. Jones, let’s try one more time. My question to you, is you didn’t see the car go through the intersection, did you?
A: No, I did not see the car go through the intersection.
The questioning is not “argumentative,” because it is directed to the witness’s personal knowledge. It is “leading,” because the answer is implied by the question.
(Probably more information than you wanted, but it’s my first ever post!)
constantine
It’s a great first post, and we only object to too much information when the subject matter is personal oozing and/or sex habits.
Welcome to the Straight Dope, constantine.
Lynn