If you’ve ever watched a legal drama on television, you’ve heard someone shout “Objection, Your Honor! Hearsay!” at a critical dramatic moment. In simple terms, that usually means a witness cites information they’ve heard from someone else.

An objection is a protest raised by an attorney during a legal proceeding. It alerts the judge that an error has been or will be made by the opposing counsel. 

If a lawyer’s objection is sustained, the offending attorney will either have to change the line of questioning or the information obtained will not be admissible. If the objection is overruled, it means that the judge disagrees with the objection, and the line of questioning can proceed. 

Many of us regularly hear courtroom objections on TV, but what do they mean? Here’s a look at eight of the most common objections.

1. “Objection! Hearsay”

Hearsay refers to secondhand information. A witness hears something from someone outside of court and then states that information in court as though it’s fact.

Statements made by a third party outside of court cannot be used in a court case to establish the truth of the matter asserted. That’s because the original source of the information cannot be questioned. If a hearsay objection is sustained, the information will typically be inadmissible. 

However, the reason the information is being presented matters a great deal.

For example, we can offer a statement that Bob said, “It’s raining outside,” to show that Bob had the ability to speak and be heard by another witness. If this is the reason we’re offering the information, whether or not it was actually raining is irrelevant.

The purpose of the hearsay rule is to prevent second-hand statements from being used as evidence unless an exception applies.

There are several exceptions, including: 

• The original declarant is dead
• The information cited is a matter of public record
• Medical diagnoses
• Party admissions
• Excited exclamations

The Texas Rules of Evidence explains all of the hearsay exceptions.

Example: 

Suppose in a trial, Witness A testifies that Person B told them, “I saw Person C assault the victim.”

Witness A does not provide direct evidence of the crime. Instead, the witness reported something Person B had said.

Another example of hearsay would be if a neighbor said she read posts on a community website that neighbors said they heard gunshots and that the shots came from the defendant’s house.

2. “Objection: Asked and Answered”

This means a witness or defendant is being asked a question that has already been answered. This is often because opposing counsel hopes for a better answer or to fluster the witness into offering an answer that contradicts the original.

I once had a law school professor who said it should be “objection; this is boring.” Sometimes, the repeated information can be a tactic to waste time.

Example:

Attorney: Did the defendant stop at the stoplight?

Witness: No, he did not

Attorney: Let me be sure everyone is clear. Did the defendant stop when the light turned red?

Witness: No

Attorney: The light was red, but the defendant didn’t stop?

Witness: That’s correct

Attorney: You’re saying that even though the light turned red, the defendant kept driving?

Defendant: Yes

3. “Objection: Leading!” 

This means that a cross-examining attorney phrases a question that hints at an answer or puts words in the witness’s mouth.

This can bias or influence the witness’s testimony and the jury’s opinion of the defendant.

Example:

“You saw the defendant holding a knife that day, didn’t you?”

4. “Objection: Argumentative”

This means that opposing counsel is arguing with a witness during cross-examination. On TV, it’s often called “badgering the witness.”

Argumentative statements typically contain information meant to achieve some other purpose.

The objectionable attorney tries to use their examination of the witness to make a point that should be saved for the argument phase of the trial. For example, they may comment on an issue that hasn’t necessarily been proven yet – hence, it is argumentative. 

Sometimes, the attorney will make a definitive statement without asking a question until the end. 

Example:

“Officer, your testimony is spotty and full of misinformation. Why are you evading my questions?” 

This is not something that was established as a fact at any point in the examination of the witness.

5. “Objection: Relevance”  

Suppose a witness is testifying in an assault case, and suddenly, a prosecutor starts asking questions about a DWI several years ago. In that case, that information might be irrelevant to the case at hand. 

Jurors can be influenced by irrelevant information, and the questions may be unfairly prejudicial.

To prevent this, the information elicited must pass the basic test for relevance. That means it must have “any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” 

It can sometimes be a very low bar. 

However, there are specific topics that are deemed irrelevant per se. These include 

• Settlement/plea discussions
• Subsequent remedial measures
• Liability insurance
• The sexual history of a witness
• Evidence of a witness’s character

Additionally – despite the relevance of a piece of information – it could be inadmissible if the harm of admitting the evidence SUBSTANTIALLY outweighs the aid to the fact finder in determining the issues in the case.

For example, in an assault trial: 

Suppose a witness is questioned about a past DWI arrest, and it turns out that the DWI directly resulted in the death of the defendant’s spouse. In that case, it may be considered relevant to the case – as long as there is enough evidence to prove that the assault was connected to that DWI.

However, sometimes, a seemingly irrelevant statement may be admissible, particularly if it is offered to establish reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in question. 

Criminal defendants are allowed to offer evidence that a third party may have committed the crime for which they have been charged.

6. “Objection: Speculation” 

A speculative question calls on a witness to answer outside of their first-hand knowledge, typically addressing another person’s thoughts and motivations.

Witnesses should never be asked to guess or make assumptions about a defendant’s actions.

If a prosecutor asks how fast someone believes a defendant was driving during a DWI trial, it is speculation. A witness typically would have no way of knowing the speed at which the vehicle was moving.

When an objection is made on speculation grounds, the judge usually sustains it and tells the attorney to establish a foundation for their question or move along.

Example:

If we ask, “Why do police officers automatically make an arrest when family violence is alleged?” and get a speculation objection, we would like to then try to establish a foundation for the question by asking the witness questions such as:

• Are you a police officer?
• Have you been trained in procedures to handle family violence allegations?

Then, ask again: “Why do police officers automatically make an arrest when family violence is alleged?” 

7. “Objection! Non-Responsive”

This is when a witness offers an answer to a question that doesn’t directly address the question.

When this happens, a judge typically cuts off the witness and asks them to answer the question directly.

Example:

A witness is asked to describe a DWI accident they saw from a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction, but the witness talks about something completely different, like how they remember the date and scene because it was their birthday.

8. “Objection: Character Evidence”

Attorneys are not allowed to offer evidence of someone’s character or prior acts (whether good or bad).

However, Texas has many exceptions to this rule, which are listed in the Texas Rules of Evidence. The REASON the information is offered is essential.

For the most part, character evidence is inadmissible if it is offered to show “conformity” with a particular character trait. 

Example: 

“[The defendant] is a liar, and he is lying now.”

There are a few notable exceptions, including:

• Evidence of a prior criminal conviction
• Introducing a pattern of lying to help a jury better determine whether the witness is trustworthy

Additionally, if the character evidence is offered for a different reason (to establish motive, opportunity, intent, plan, identity, etc.), it is often admissible.

Additionally, in a criminal case, the defendant can always offer good character evidence if it relates to a “pertinent” character trait. This is often dangerous, however, as it opens the door for the prosecutor to rebut with bad character evidence.