I know this seems like a no-brainer, but I’ll ask anyway.
If an attorney objects and the judge says “Overruled”, that means s/he won’t support the objection, right? And if s/he says “Sustained”, that means the opposing attorney has to withdraw whatever the first one objected to. Right?
Yep and im not even a lawyer and know this one (hopefully)
Although its not a total withdrawal sometimes its just a objection over how something was phrased or answered
If its phrased wrong The lawyer might get to re ask the question in a less inflammiatory mannor
Or the witness might need to reword a answer … or the judge might remove a sentence of what a witness said
I see. Thank you.
There are different kinds of questions. TV lawyers and judges tend to gloss over this fact. It’s true that often, merely saying “Objection!” is sufficient, if the question offered is clearly objectionable. But more often, the attorney offering the objection must also offer the grounds for his objection. He may be objecting because the question calls for hearsay, for example; that the question is leading in a situation in which a leading question is not permitted; that the question calls for speculation; that the question is vague; that it assumes facts not in evidence (“Have you stopped beating your wife”); that it seeks to elicit irrelevant or inadmissable evidence; that the witness’ answer is not responsive to the question… there are, in other words, many specific reasons to object.
If the objecting attorney fails to make his specific reason for the objection clear, then his objection may have no appellate value. In other words, when the trial is over, and he is scouring the record for issues to bring to the appellate court’s attention, any objection that he made and the trial court overruled is fodder to claim error. A basic principle of appellate practice is that, in general, you may not complain about an error at trial unless you objected to it at trial, with enough specificity that the judge (and the opposing side) could understand and rule on your objection. If he merely says, “Objection!” and the judge overrules him, he cannot claim later that this was error – how was the judge supposed to know on what grounds he based his objection? How was the other side supposed to respond to the objection?
The lesson is that in real life, in most instances, the objecting attorney will follow his objection with the grounds, and, if there’s any doubt, the judge will give the other side a chance to offer a rationale before ruling.
Having said all that – yes, sustaining the objection means that the judge rules that the objection has merit, and the offending question, answer, motion, or evidence is refused. Overruling the objection means that the question in question, so to speak, is permitted.
Finally, one more gripe at TV courtroom procedure: I can’t stand it when a lawyer makes a valid objection, and the judge simply says, “I’ll allow it,” without offering into the record any possible REASON he may be allowing it. Without making a record of his reasoning, he’s ripe for appellate reversal; the appealing lawyer can much more easily claim an abuse of discretion, especially in light of the fact that blatantly inadmissable testimony is being permitted.
But after all: how many shows track the apppeals process?
The way the Law & Order franchise is spreading, I’m sure we’ll soon see “Law & Order: Special Criminal Appeals” coming soon. Of course, it will be the first failure in the L&O stable, as they discover that you simply can’t make appellate cases seem interesting to a TV audience.
Thanks, Bricker! What a wealth of info!
Heh, I recall a famous actor (pretty sure it was Tom Selleck) was on the stand in LA a few years back being cross examined by the opposing attorney who asked a particularly biting question.
ACTOR: (to judge) Are you going to allow that!?
JUDGE: Objection sustained.
So apparently, the lawyer doesn’t even have to make the objection 
For what it’s worth, I see this sort of stuff in the courtroom all the time. Just this afternoon, I objected to a couple questions and the judge overruled my objections without any explanation and without giving me any chance to offer grounds for my objection.
I imagine that judges are more circumspect when there is a jury involved.
We have all been there:
Q: Have you quit beating your wife?
Mr. Gelding: Objection. Assumes fact not in evidence.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Gelding: May I be heard, Your Honor?
The Court: No. (To the witness) Answer the question.
Mr Gelding: (Uninteligible muttering)
The Court: I beg you pardon.
Mr. Gelding: Not a thing, Your Honor…
It’s stuff like this that makes life exciting.
Now up here, instead of the “may I be heard” and “unitelligible muttering” stuff, it would just be compressed into the simple phrase, “As your Lordship pleases.” Neat, tidy, and acceptably insubordinate. 