Well, it depends a lot on the judge, who the lawyers are, and what the rules of procedure are (in other words pretty much everything).
In most cases there will not be as many objections as we see on tv (remember they are showing us only the exciting or interesting parts–You missed the three hour review of the psychologist’s potty training and early employment at McDonald’s).
Objections are a tricky thing, and you have to look at them a few different ways:
-
If you don’t make them, then they aren’t preserved for appeal. Damaging evidence might be introduced. But
-
If you make an objection, you are emphasizing the very evidence you are trying to exclude.
-
Also, if you object too much, it can turn the jury against you. You are taking up time, interrupting the story, just when it is getting good, and trying to prevent them from hearing stuff (the secret stuff is always the juiciest, right?).
But you also asked about asking objectionable questions. Here’s the deal: At the extremes, there are ethical proscriptions Rule 3.4(e), but beyond that, it’s all fair game. There’s an old saw from law school, “The evidence isn’t inadmissible until the judge sustains the objection.” So if I ask a question and the other guy is too slow, doesn’t catch it, or decides not to object, the evidence comes in.
And if I ask a question, and the other guy objects, the jury still heard the question (if not the answer) and I get the benefit of items 2 and 3 above.
It’s a no lose game. Of course, if I abuse this rule, it could work to my disadvantage.
A lot of this stuff, even on L&O, is resolved by pretrial motions. There is the motion to supress (for illegally seized evidence and coerced confessions), the motion to quash (for inappropriate witnesses), and the motion in limine (for a pretrial ruling on an anticipated evidentiary issue). Of course, all of these rulings are subject to modification at any time before the jury begins deliberating. But if I win a motion* in limine* on an important issue, say admissibility of evidence of prior convictions, and my opponent asks about them anyway, my opponent risks a mistrial or a scolding from the judge.
And regarding withdrawing the question, a friend of mine (an experienced trial lawyer) once pointed out that the people who do that are the ones who learned about trials by watching movies. I’m not talking about a simple mistake, I’m talking about an LA Law sized, “What did you tell your lawyer after you flunked your fifteenth polygraph test?” type question, where the whole point of the question is either to argue with the witness, or to expose the jury to extremely prejudicial information. My friend pointed out that by withdrawing the question, you are admitting:
a. You knew the question was a bad one;
b. You didn’t need the information to make your case; and therefore,
c. You are playing games and wasting everybody’s time.
If the other guy objects, you don’t really have to defend the question, typically, and there is enough play in the joints of the rules of evidence to defend just about every question.
Objections have to be rule based, questions just have to seek relevant information (I’m simplifying here).