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.
In my jurisdiction, Rule 5A:18:
(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.
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.
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.
<vaguely related anecdote>
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?”
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.
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!”
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.
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.
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.
Ok, it seems like “preserving objection” or some form is the term I want to search for :). Thanks all!
Preserve is definitely the verb, but the object is usually issue and not objection.