In Objection Basics: Part I, we left off with Step 2: State the rule under which you are objecting. Now we need to complete that initial statement making the objection.
3. If necessary, clarify what you’re objecting to.
Step 3 should usually be accomplished in that same initial statement of your objection. It’s mostly going to prove necessary when there could be multiple things you’re objecting to, or when you’re objecting to only a narrow piece of testimony. For instance, if the witness says something like, “She yelled ‘Stop! He has a gun!’ at me,” and you want to object to hearsay, you’d probably want to only object to the “He has a gun!” part, because the first part isn’t hearsay- it’s a command (you probably shouldn’t object to the second part either, because it’s likely to be covered both by present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions, but let’s ignore that for the moment). So your initial statement to the judge would be something like, “Objection, Your Honor, Hearsay, specifically to the second part of the statement.” In that situation, you could also leave it until you get a chance to respond and clarify with “Your Honor, I’m objecting specifically to the second part of the statement, the assertion ‘he has a gun’.”
4. Make or listen to the response
So far we’ve been talking as though you’re always going to be the person objecting. But sometimes you’re going to be the person responding to an objection: you’re going to have to explain to the judge why you should be allowed to ask a question, or why your witness should be allowed to say something. Remember that you are having a conversation with the judge: you are not arguing with the other attorney. Address the judge: face the judge and refer to opposing counsel (respectfully) in the third person. Some Mock Trial teams will forbid their attorneys from ever looking at opposing counsel. Even if you’re allowed to look at opposing counsel, be sure you’re looking at the judge while you talk in an objection argument.
There are three basic components to every good objection argument: 1) the rule, principle of law, or definition most at issue; 2) the content being discussed; 3) the relationship between the two. To put it more concisely, your objection arguments should include the rule, the facts, and a connection between them. Most of the time the content you’re objecting to will be sufficiently clear from steps 1-3; you don’t need to reiterate that every time, but you should be sure the judge understands what the relevant content is. So most of the time you’ll focus on the rule and the connection between the two.
To understand why I keep talking about the rule, and what rule you should state, it’s important that you have a firm grasp on what you’re doing in an objection argument. Fundamentally, you’re arguing about what whether a particular rule applies. You’re trying to demonstrate that either a rule “fits” the content- that statement is hearsay, or is irrelevant, or that it doesn’t: there’s no ‘match’ between the what the rule prohibits and what you’re talking about here. There are, then, two basic strategies to responding to an objection: pick a part of the rule your opponent is objecting under and explain why there’s no match between that and the content, or pick an exception to the rule your opponent is objecting under and explain why there is a match between that and the content. So to make a clear argument, your argument will often proceed by quoting a rule and then explaining that match or lack of match.
4. Make or listen to the response
So far we’ve been talking as though you’re always going to be the person objecting. But sometimes you’re going to be the person responding to an objection: you’re going to have to explain to the judge why you should be allowed to ask a question, or why your witness should be allowed to say something. Remember that you are having a conversation with the judge: you are not arguing with the other attorney. Address the judge: face the judge and refer to opposing counsel (respectfully) in the third person. Some Mock Trial teams will forbid their attorneys from ever looking at opposing counsel. Even if you’re allowed to look at opposing counsel, be sure you’re looking at the judge while you talk in an objection argument.
There are three basic components to every good objection argument: 1) the rule, principle of law, or definition most at issue; 2) the content being discussed; 3) the relationship between the two. To put it more concisely, your objection arguments should include the rule, the facts, and a connection between them. Most of the time the content you’re objecting to will be sufficiently clear from steps 1-3; you don’t need to reiterate that every time, but you should be sure the judge understands what the relevant content is. So most of the time you’ll focus on the rule and the connection between the two.
To understand why I keep talking about the rule, and what rule you should state, it’s important that you have a firm grasp on what you’re doing in an objection argument. Fundamentally, you’re arguing about what whether a particular rule applies. You’re trying to demonstrate that either a rule “fits” the content- that statement is hearsay, or is irrelevant, or that it doesn’t: there’s no ‘match’ between the what the rule prohibits and what you’re talking about here. There are, then, two basic strategies to responding to an objection: pick a part of the rule your opponent is objecting under and explain why there’s no match between that and the content, or pick an exception to the rule your opponent is objecting under and explain why there is a match between that and the content. So to make a clear argument, your argument will often proceed by quoting a rule and then explaining that match or lack of match.
That's a general guide to making organized and clear objection arguments; in Objection Basics: Part III, we'll talk specifically about your initial objection response.
No comments:
Post a Comment