Not in my experience; I readily concede that civil practice may iron out contentious issues ahead of time, but even an adverse in limine ruling doesn’t absolve you from the requirement to preserve your record during the trial. And in criminal practice, for misdemeanor and and small felony work… “pre-trial conference?” What’s that?
Yes, he plays a cop, but that’s none too relevant. Pissing off the judge (and it was blatantly obvious that he was simply ignoring the judge and knowingly attempting to taint the trial) is horrendously stupid. It means that in the future, other judges will refuse him and possibly the prosecutor any latitude. It means he would possibly be jailed for Contempt of Court. It would not reflect well on the police. It would probably have seriously damaged his career. The trial would have a good chance of being restarted.
Basically, it was a truly stupid move. In real life, the prosecutor would almost certainly have cut him off in some way, because a witness like that can destroy him with repercussions.
Am I the only one who remembers the televised OJ trial? I remember vividly hearing both Darden and Clark at various times say simply “Objection” with no specifics, and Ito saying “Sustained” with no further direction to the defense side, and then Cochran rephrasing the question or going on to some other line of questioning. It was very clear that all parties (except maybe the witness) knew exactly what was being objected to and why, and exactly what Ito’s ruling meant, without anyone having to explicitly state anything.
As a possibly interesting aside: when this happens (a government witness deliberately offering inadmissible testimony in order to prejudice the accused) it’s known as an evidentiary harpoon.
I’ve seen far too many TV shows and movies where counsel keeps asking questions, getting in the witness’s face, even as opposing counsel pounds the table and shouts, “Objection! OBJECTION!” Of course the judge doesn’t rule and of course the witness still answers, giving the persistent lawyer just the bit of evidence he needs to win, and giving the viewer a spine-tingling bit of courtroom excitement. Doesn’t happen in real life, or shouldn’t.
IME most judges, especially if it’s a jury trial, require the lawyers to state no reason for an objection, to avoid tainting the jury, or will permit at most a very brief explanation of the basis for the objection (“Objection, hearsay,” “Objection, calls for speculation,” etc.) You go to sidebar if an objection needs to be discussed at length. In every court in which I’ve appeared, the judge will sustain an objection even it’s for a different reason than that stated by the objecting lawyer. That’s my usual approach, too, although when I’m presiding over mock trials I’ll overrule “wrong” objections to better teach the law students.
I’ve told this story before on the Dope: I was once a prosecutor in a bench trial, a felonious assault case. Defense counsel was asking a lot of questions of my medical expert witness that were close to the line of being objectionable, but I didn’t think my case was being hurt, and I figured the judge was smart enough to sort things out, so I didn’t object. Eventually, though, the other lawyer asked a question which I thought was flat-out objectionable, so I spoke up. The judge looked at me over her glasses and said dryly, “Nice to hear from you, Elendil’s Heir. Sustained!” Obviously she thought I should’ve objected sooner, but she wasn’t going to do my job for me.
On the other hand, I once knew an ogre of a judge who would bark “Sustained!” out of the blue, even if no objection was made by opposing counsel, sustaining her own objections. Took some getting used to. Then I knew another judge who asked quite a few questions of his own in a bench trial, finally causing defense counsel to hesitantly object. The judge thought about it, grinned, realized he’d gotten a little carried away, and sustained the objection to his own question!
Regarding the need to specify the grounds of an evidentiary objection, I swear the following is as close to true as not to make any difference:
DA: (Question which if answered will blow the case out of the water, tie it up in a red ribbon with a big puffy bow and sent the defendant off to the State Pen for up to. but not more than, twenty-five years)
Mr. Gelding: Objection , your honor.
The Court: What is the basis of the objection?
Mr. Gelding: Well, err, ah – it’s prejudicial to my client, sir.
The Court: These entire proceedings are prejudicial to your client. Overruled.
It is in this way that young lawyers learn their trade.
From the Jim Carrey movie Liar Liar:
Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it’s devastating to my case!
Judge: Overruled.
Fletcher: Good call!