Objection Basics: Part IV

In Objection Basics: Part III, we left off after discussing Step 4, the initial response to an objection. Now we'll deal with subsequent responses.

5. Make or listen to the subsequent response.

Up to this point two major things have happened: either you or opposing counsel made an objection, and either you or opposing counsel made an initial response to that objection. Now the person who made the objection will request and often receive permission to defend their objection against whatever response was made. Typically then the other lawyer will ask permission to respond, and will again attempt to undermine the objection. Then the objecting lawyer can ask to respond and once again defend their objection, and on and on until the judge rules. The judge can jump in and rule at any point. The judge may also decide to break up this neat back-and-forth by following up on an argument themselves, or asking a question, or even inserting an entirely new argument into the discussion. There isn’t a formula for any of your responses at this point: your goal is to win the objection argument by making logical and clear arguments that persuade the judge. A few guidelines to keep in mind are:

• Pay attention to the judge’s understanding of the argument. If it becomes clear that they’re finding some point you’re making particularly effective, hammer that point, even if you don’t think it’s your strongest. If they ask you about some argument opposing counsel isn’t touching, address that. If they ask about some entirely different objection, address that. The judge is your first priority. 
• Stay coherent. There’s a lot going on inside your head when you’re dealing with an objection argument. Ideas about how to argue are going to be popping in and out of your head, and you’re trying to respond to points the judge and opposing counsel are throwing at you. What happens to a lot of people is they start making many arguments- even good arguments- at once, that don’t clearly relate to each other or to what’s been said in the discussion thus far. Tie what you’re saying to a point opposing counsel made or that the judge is asking about. This is an advantage of starting your responses with the definition or principle of law you’re discussing. If the judge is asking you about hearsay, beginning with a definition of hearsay is obviously a coherent response to the question. 
• Remember the three points to keep clear: the rule, the facts, and the connection between the two
• I allow the teams I coach to refer to a copy of the Rules of Evidence during objection arguments, in moderation. Don’t use it like you’d use notes on an open book test, frantically flipping through for something you can turn into an answer, and don’t use it as a crutch, relying on it every time. It’s best used when there’s a dispute over the text of a rule; by pointing your finger to a page and reading, you’re making it absolutely clear that you have the text correct. 
• Don’t use “I think/I believe” statements. Simply put, no one cares. The judge wants to know what the law is, not what you think it is. Phrases like “I think/I believe/in my opinion” are usually used as qualifiers. Complete confidence in your assertions is essential in an objection argument- qualifiers are antithetical to what you’re trying to do. Drop them. The reason this is only a guideline and not a rule is that you can make statements like “It is our burden to prove...” Or “The argument we’re making here...” which can look very similar to “I think/I believe” statements. The difference is that you’re still stating facts when you make those sort of assertions; you aren’t describing your personal opinions. The judge does care about your burden and your argument. They don’t care about your opinion.

Now a few rules to keep in mind:

• When the judge rules, stop arguing. You don’t even get to ask to respond. The judge is the absolute, final authority in the courtroom. That means that the ruling they just gave is the absolute, final authority on the objection argument you just had. You must avoid even the appearance of challenging that authority.
• You’ll see other teams request and usually receive permission to consult with co-counsel during objection arguments. They’ll then lean over and talk the objection argument through with the other lawyers on their team. Don’t do this. It’s a clear admission that you can’t handle the argument on your own. Using this crutch costs you whatever points you would have gotten for handling the objection well, and probably some additional points for being unable to handle the objection at all. 
• Don’t ask the judge to explain a rule to you. This approach has all the downsides of admitting you can’t handle the argument on your own, and it implies that the judge has some obligation to teach you, which isn’t the case. 

I have rules and guidelines in separate lists because they are very different things. These rules are not to be broken, or even bent, under any circumstances.
You’ll probably have noticed that between the guidelines and the rules, I’ve cut off virtually every source of outside help you could have: you can’t ask your teammates or the judge and can only use the Rules of Evidence in limited circumstances. Believe it or not, you are always better off handling the argument yourself then you are leaning on someone or something else. Think of it this way: the judges are scoring your performance. If we can see someone else doing the work, we’re not going to give you points for it.

I said last time that we'd be discussing full-length objection dialogue examples in Part IV, but I'm now thinking I'll need to cover some of what I would consider "advanced objection techniques" before we can fully explore some objection examples. In Objection Basics: Part V, I'm going to go over concluding an objection argument, and hopefully discuss some advanced material in the next few posts.