# I Object! **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 31, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580 "2016-08-31T16:59:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580/21 "2016-08-31T19:10:16Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Alan Dershowitz served this role during O.J. Simpson’s murder trial. He was part of Simpson’s legal team but he really didn’t participate in the defense. He was there to make sure the proper groundwork was laid during the trial for future appeals if Simpson had been found guilty. In the OJ trial Judge Ito also laid down the law on objections when the lawyers were using them to talk to the jury. He made them stick to say “Objection” followed by the small set of legitimate reasons for an objection. The end result was numerous sidebar discussions with the lawyers which probably served just as well for the defense by making the testimony incomprehensible. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580/22 "2016-08-31T19:58:33Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Sure. Here’s an example: > > **Example A** : > > A witness, David Wallace, testifies that George Saunders told him that the Defendant was high on crack. The Defendant’s attorney objects to the testimony without stating the grounds for the objection. The Court, believing the objection to be about Saunder’s expertise in judging who is and who is not high on crack, overrules the objection because George Saunders has enough specialized training to know. However, the testimony was hearsay and should have been stricken. > > Can the appellate court review the hearsay issue? The answer is generally “no.” You have to object on the correct ground, and you have to state the ground. Same result if the attorney objected and identified only the expert opinion issue without identifying the hearsay issue. > > Here’s a harder one– > > **Example B:** > > A witness, David Wallace, testifies that George Saunders told him that the Defendant’s car was speeding. The Defendant’s attorney objects. Hearsay! The attorney who wants to admit the testimony tells the judge that it isn’t hearsay, because George Saunders was making a spontaneous declaration in response to seeing the car zoom past him. The judge sustains the objection as outside the scope of that exception to hearsay. But, as it turns out, as earlier testimony had established, George Saunders was an employee of the defendant company, and the hearsay testimony is admissible as a vicarious party admission. > > May the appellate court reviewing the admission of the testimony find that the judge made the wrong decision about hearsay? I don’t know. The outcome depends on the appellate court’s precedent concerning these things (which is very often non-existent), and it is often difficult to predict just whether the court of appeals will consider the objection to be adequately preserved. In my jurisdiction, Rule 5A:18: > [@](#): > > No ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless the objection was stated **together with the grounds therefor**. (emphasis added) And as appellate courts say so often that they probably have a keyboard macro for it: "the main purpose of Rule 5A:18 “is to afford the trial court an opportunity to rule intelligently on the issues presented, thus avoiding unnecessary appeals and reversals.” So the general result is: if you don’t preserve your objection by stating both the objection and the grounds, the appellate court can simply ignore the issue. Of course, they are free to consider it is plain error, and they are free to affirm a ruling on some other _sua spomte_ imagined grounds. So that disposes of “A.” Example B would require the objecting attorney to make clear that in addition to spontaneous declaration, the testimony is a party admission. Failing that, plain error is the only way out. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580/23 "2016-08-31T20:02:16Z")
Should be mentioned that at least a good share (most?) objections are offered by an atty trying to persuade his client he’s doing a bang-up job, or trying to confuse/frustrate opposing counsel or the decision-maker. But I just do admin law, so my experience is limited. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580/24 "2016-08-31T20:21:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Do they ever actually do that thing where they ask an obviously objectionable question, and then immediately withdraw it when the opposing counsel objects? > > “Aren’t you just saying that because you’re a lying scumbag?” > > “Objection!” > > “Withdrawn. No further questions.” > > Regards, > Shodan I saw it happen exactly like this when I was on jury duty. “Did X tell you to say these things?” “Objection.” “Sustained.” “No further questions.” We found out later that the defense was flailing to try to find some way to get their obviously guilty clients acquitted. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580/25 "2016-08-31T21:43:18Z")
\ Way back before computers, the Ministry of Defence would literally circulate papers with proposals for people to comment on. One eminent general, on reading a particularly ludicrous proposal wrote ate the bottom (being as polite as he could) “Round Objects” When the Minister got his proposal back, he circled the note and wrote (for his secretary) “Who is Round, and to what does he object?” ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580/26 "2016-08-31T23:27:06Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > \ > Way back before computers, the Ministry of Defence would literally circulate papers with proposals for people to comment on. One eminent general, on reading a particularly ludicrous proposal wrote ate the bottom (being as polite as he could) “Round Objects” > > When the Minister got his proposal back, he circled the note and wrote (for his secretary) “Who is Round, and to what does he object?” [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yes,\_Minister#Episode\_One:\_Equal\_Opportunities](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yes,_Minister#Episode_One:_Equal_Opportunities) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580/27 "2016-08-31T23:30:56Z")
I’m hearing conflicting information, here. On the one hand, I’m hearing that when lawyers object, it’s usually just the one word, and the judge just answers with one word, on the understanding that everyone knows why the objection was made. On the other hand, I’m hearing that if grounds aren’t given for the objection, it’s useless or close to it for appealing the case, which is one of the primary purposes for objections. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580/28 "2016-08-31T23:34:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Do they ever actually do that thing where they ask an obviously objectionable question, and then immediately withdraw it when the opposing counsel objects? > > “Aren’t you just saying that because you’re a lying scumbag?” > > “Objection!” > > “Withdrawn. No further questions.” > > Regards, > Shodan Or as in “Community” where “withdrawn” happens even before the objection: “Is that why you hit your wife? Withdrawn! Is that why you smoke pot and pop pills? Withdrawn! Are you a virgin? Withdrawn!” ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580/29 "2016-08-31T23:45:26Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’m hearing conflicting information, here. On the one hand, I’m hearing that when lawyers object, it’s usually just the one word, and the judge just answers with one word, on the understanding that everyone knows why the objection was made. On the other hand, I’m hearing that if grounds aren’t given for the objection, it’s useless or close to it for appealing the case, which is one of the primary purposes for objections. It varies by jurisdiction (and sometimes by Judge). Judges usually make their preferences clear. These days, I usually get judges who just want you to “object” and then if it’s not clear to them why, they’ll ask for grounds. On the other hand, I was in one courtroom recently where the judge allows entire arguments in front of the jury that most judges would insist take place at sidebar or when the jury was excused. So, you _are_ hearing conflicting information. Welcome to the practice of law. ---
**Author:** ![dofe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ba0ec/32.png) [@dofe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dofe)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2016, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580/30 "2016-08-31T23:51:25Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’m hearing conflicting information, here. On the one hand, I’m hearing that when lawyers object, it’s usually just the one word, and the judge just answers with one word, on the understanding that everyone knows why the objection was made. On the other hand, I’m hearing that if grounds aren’t given for the objection, it’s useless or close to it for appealing the case, which is one of the primary purposes for objections. That’s because the “American legal system” is a mishmash of 50 different state court systems (which themselves may include countless other County and municipal courts) along with 12 federal circuit courts (made up of 94 judicial districts) that have their own procedural rules. Nonetheless, objections generally must be specific enough to allow review by an appellate court. The poster who mentioned being in jury trial where the attorneys simply objected without specifying any reasons may have been in a court system where that’s just local practice. Or maybe the attorney simply objected for tactical reasons without considering the issue vital for appeal (likely given the comment about the rapid succession of objections). Or maybe he was just a new and inexperienced attorney. I don’t think that anecdote takes away from the general rule that objections need some level of specificity to be sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2016, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580/31 "2016-09-01T01:50:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Do they ever actually do that thing where they ask an obviously objectionable question, and then immediately withdraw it when the opposing counsel objects? > > “Aren’t you just saying that because you’re a lying scumbag?” > > “Objection!” > > “Withdrawn. No further questions.” > > Regards, > Shodan Wouldn’t that in itself be grounds for an appeal? “Jury was misled. My client was accused of being a lying scumbag with no evidence presented to justify the implication.” Or is the jury supposed to be smart enough to see through this? How wild can a question get? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2016, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580/32 "2016-09-01T02:00:08Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Wouldn’t that in itself be grounds for an appeal? “Jury was misled. My client was accused of being a lying scumbag with no evidence presented to justify the implication.” Or is the jury supposed to be smart enough to see through this? How wild can a question get? Jurors are told to disregard any question to which an objection was sustained, and they are presumed to be able to follow that instruction. Of course, if it’s bad enough, a mistrial could be ordered. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2016, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580/33 "2016-09-01T15:59:22Z")
Ok, it seems like “preserving objection” or some form is the term I want to search for :). Thanks all! ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2016, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580/34 "2016-09-01T21:34:33Z")
Preserve is definitely the verb, but the object is usually issue and not objection. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-object/764580.md?page=1)