#LAY WITNESS TRIAL#

Objections are extremely time sensitive, and if more than a few seconds pass between hearing the evidence in question and making the objection, the evidence will likely be admitted. If the attorney hears something that is objectionable, they must then make a split second decision on whether or not to object. The process of making an objection is twofold:įirst, an attorney must be paying close attention to what questions are being asked, and what answers are being given. One of the most difficult aspects of making an objection is that an attorney often needs to react very quickly. If there is an evidence issue with an attorney’s statements during these arguments, it should be brought to the judge’s attention during rebuttal. Statements made by attorneys during opening or closing arguments cannot be objected to.

#LAY WITNESS TRIAL#

Objections in mock trial can only be made during the direct and cross examination. Other competitions may use more or less objections, so be sure to check your specific rules before competing. The rest of this post will refer to the objections used by California Mock Trial, organized by the Constitutional Rights Foundation. During competitions, mock trial attorneys are limited to the objections set forth in the specific rules for their competition. Most mock trial competitions publish their own simplified rules of evidence, which include the most essential objections. In the US legal system, objections are part of evidence codes, and can be extremely complicated.

Often, the end goal of the objection is to have evidence limited or altogether ruled inadmissible by the judge. An objection is a statement made by an attorney during a case for the purpose of questioning or challenging any specific evidence. Subsection (c) merely states this proposition in the reverse.Few things are as intimidating to a new mock trial attorney as the concept of making objections during trial. This is roughly equivalent to saying that opinion evidence must be helpful.Īs to subsection (c), the Court of Appeals has stated that expert testimony is essential where the topic is not a matter within the common knowledge andĮxperience of most lay persons. Observations of the witness and not merely upon the statements of another witness).Īs to subsection (b), the prior case law has held that opinion evidence is admissible as long as it is not superfluous.

187, 195 S.E.2d 116 (1973) (opinion must be based upon the personal Subsection (a) appears to be consistent with prior law. The language of subsection (c) isīased on language contained in the rules of evidence of Florida and Tennessee, and is intended to emphasize the fact that lay persons may not give (c) do not require special knowledge, skill, experience or training.Įxcept for the addition of subsection (c) and minor grammatical changes, this rule is identical to the federal rule. Rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) are helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which (a) are

Lay witness