How Does a Judge Rule on Objections?

In any TV show or movie featuring a trial, a dramatic scene has the attorney leaping up and shouting, "Objection!" After a dramatic pause, the judge growls, "Sustained!" or "Overruled!" But what is the purpose of an objection? And how does a judge decide whether to sustain or overrule it?

A lawyer's objection lets the judge know that the other attorney may have violated a rule of evidence or procedure. Trial objections and the judge's ruling determine whether a jury can consider these violations or if they are stricken from the record.

Attorneys must present all types of evidence, including witness testimony and physical evidence, according to strict rules.

What Are the Rules of Evidence?

The rules of evidence determine what attorneys may present in court. Federal courts use the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), but state courts base their own evidence rules on the FRE. There are rules for both civil and criminal courts.

The FRE's basic rule is that evidence must be relevant. Not every piece of evidence in a case is relevant. Relevant evidence:

1. Tends to prove or disprove a fact or make a fact more or less probable than if the evidence was not admitted; and
2. The fact is of consequence in determining the case

Suppose evidence from a criminal case consists of a knife with blood on it and a bag of peanuts. If the victim died of stab wounds, the knife is relevant. But if a suspect has a peanut allergy and the peanuts tend to exonerate that suspect, the peanuts are also relevant.

Judges will allow relevant evidence and prohibit irrelevant evidence, such as:

• Evidence that is unfairly prejudicial to the defendant
• Evidence with no probative value
• Evidence that would confuse or mislead the jury
• Evidence that is needlessly cumulative or repetitive and would waste the court's time

These limits ensure that the jury hears only essential and useful evidence.

Witness Testimony

Many objections involve witness testimony. Questioning witnesses is an art, and attorneys must walk a fine line when eliciting answers from reluctant or nervous witnesses. The rules about asking questions don't vary much from court to court.

• On direct examination, an attorney questions their own witnesses. Witnesses may only present facts of which they have personal knowledge. They may only answer the question asked and can only provide the facts as they know them.

• On direct examination, attorneys may not ask leading questions. A leading question is one where the witness can only answer "Yes" or "No." For instance, "Did you see the car go through the red light?" The attorney must ask, "What did you see as you looked into the intersection?"

• On cross-examination, the opposing attorney questions the witness. They may ask leading questions since the purpose of cross-examination is to invalidate or discredit the witness.

• During both types of witness testimony, witnesses must rely on their memory of the event. Under certain circumstances, attorneys may show them documents or recordings of the event to "refresh their recollection."

• Expert witnesses may offer opinions. The court must confirm expert witnesses, and both sides must agree on the witness's qualifications.

• Documents have rules to prove authenticity. Usually, the person who creates or maintains the documents must testify about their accuracy.

• Physical evidence must be relevant and have an unbroken chain of custody. It must have gone from the point of collection to the courtroom without anyone touching or altering it. This is especially important in criminal cases.

What Is 'Hearsay'?

The legal definition of "hearsay" is "an out-of-court statement made by one other than the declarant, offered into evidence, to prove the truth of the matter asserted." The hearsay rule states that a witness may not repeat a statement they heard someone else say to prove that what the person said is true.

There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule. Most attorneys introduce hearsay evidence with the appropriate exception to avoid any objections in advance.

How Does a Judge Rule on Objections?

Unlike in movies, attorneys can't just say "objection." They must state the reason for their objection. The judge can either "overrule" or "sustain" the objection.

When the judge overrules an objection, the judge believes the evidence was properly admitted, or the question was correct. The trial can proceed without further action.

If the judge sustains the objection, the judge has several options:

• They can order the attorney to rephrase the question.
• They can order the attorney to stop asking the question and move to a new line of questioning.
• They can order the response "stricken" or removed from the record.
• They can request a "sidebar" or a brief meeting with the attorneys. Judges do this when there has been a series of objections on the same topic.

Objections are important procedural maneuvers. Objections and the judge's rulings are on the record. When the case is over, the losing party can appeal. Since the appellate court only reviews the record, anything not on the record is not reviewed. If an attorney fails to object to evidence or questions, they can't appear in the appeal.

Common Objections and What They Mean

Attorneys make most objections to evidence in pretrial motions and hearings. Evidence rules require both parties to know what the other party will present. "Surprise" evidence is not allowed. Most objections concern the presentation of evidence and the questioning of witnesses.

• Badgering the witness: When opposing counsel cross-examines a witness, the witness may not answer how the attorney wants. If the attorney is too harsh or forceful, the other attorney may object, saying they are "badgering" or harassing the witness.

• Non-responsive answer: Sometimes, witnesses give evasive or rambling answers to questions. If the answer is irrelevant or confusing, the attorney may object and ask that it be stricken as "non-responsive" to avoid confusing the jury.

• Lack of foundation: Documentary evidence must have "foundation" before it can be shown to the jury. The attorney must show the evidence's origin and why it is relevant. Usually, the judge allows the attorney to establish the foundation before admitting the evidence.

• Compound question/compound answer: A compound question asks for more than one fact in response. "Tell us where you work and your job description" is a compound question. The witness's testimony must consist of single questions and single answers. Similarly, a compound answer provides too much information to a single question. If the question is "Tell us where you work," and the witness answers, "I work at ATT, and I'm a receptionist," the opposing party could object.

See FindLaw's section on Courtroom Procedure for more information.