Advanced Objection Tactics: Buying Time to Think

Objection arguments always happen quickly. You have a small amount of time to register that there is something objectionable happening, decide that it's worth objecting to, get on your feet, and begin articulating your point. Practice and developing good instincts help immensely with this, but there will still be moments when you need a second for your brain to organize itself enough to argue properly. You’re going to instinctively want to fill that time with “Um”, “Uh”, and awkward silence; your coach is probably working on breaking you of those habits. You can fill in that space instead with initial sentences that are easy to formulate. There are two basic sources of those sentences: the basic principles of law at issue and the main point of your argument. If you’ve prepared properly and certainly if you’ve had a little experience, you shouldn’t have to think about the definition of relevance, or hearsay, or any other common objection. That means those definitions are easy first sentences. You also may have a sense of the main point of your argument before you have an idea of how to articulate the details of it well. Stating or even re-stating that point can be a useful way to begin as you organize your thoughts as well. I’ve tried to emphasize how important it is to make sure the rule is clear, and the main point of your argument should absolutely be clear as well, but sometimes it isn’t strictly necessary to re-state those things explicitly. It can still be acceptable and useful to do so as a time-buying tactic. Even when the point has been made to death and it absolutely is a bad idea to say it yet again, it is still better than standing there silent or filling your sentences with “um.”
Another time-buying tactic involves splitting your objection argument into two tasks: developing your own argument and attacking your opponent’s argument. Sometimes those things will be virtually identical: your entire argument might be that they’re using a faulty premise, for instance. But quite often they can be usefully thought of as separate tasks. In Objection Basics: Part III, we used an example in which you cross-examined the witness over an incident in which they lied five years ago and opposing counsel objected under Relevance, arguing that an incident that was so far in the past could not have bear on the witness’s credibility today. You might attack that point, emphasizing the egregiousness of the lie and the importance of the witness’s credibility today. But you might also be developing your own argument that opposing counsel’s assessment of the impact of this witness’s credibility doesn’t matter, since that’s a question that should be put before the jury. How does this split help you buy time? If you know how to do one task, do that while you think about the other. Quite often it’s easier to attack an opponent’s argument than it is to develop your own; you can jump straight into that even if you aren’t quite sure where your own argument is going.