70 generic objections

8/4/2019 70 Generic Objections

1/5

HIP-POCKET LIST OF +70 BASIC GENERIC OBJECTIONS

(Best for Use in Jurisdictions Using the Federal Rules of Evidence as a Model)

Note: There are many more potential objections than the ones listed below, e.g., duringjury voir dire,

you might object to opponent impermissibly attempting to commit or pledge a prospective juror to a

particular result, inopening statement, you might object to counsel arguing the case, indirectorcross-

examination, you might object to the opponent making disparaging sidebar remarks, not addressed to

the court, while you are questioning a witness, injury argumentyou might object to the opponent

arguing facts that are not supported by evidence, expressing her personal opinion, etc. That said, here's

a list of some basic objections that recur in criminal trials across the country:

Ambiguous (see vague) Answer non-responsive Answer exceeds (goes beyond) scope of question and constitutes a volunteered statement by

the witness

Argument improper (e.g., refers to facts not in evidence, misstates evidence, misquotes witness,vouches for witness, indicates personal belief or opinion of counsel, unfairly prejudicial,

comment on defendant's failure to testify, indirect attack on accused by attacking integrity of

defense counsel; [for specific objections to jury argument]

Argumentative in content and tone without asking for new information; using his/her questionto argue the case

Asking one witness to comment on the veracity of another witness' testimony improperlyinvades the province of the jury to determine witness credibility and is improper character

evidence. (example: where one witness is asked whether another witness lied or told the truth)

[note: there are lots of cases on this, but prosecutors seem to have a proclivity for such "war the

officer lying" questions on cross of the defendant, e.g., united states v. Geston, 299 f.3d 1130

(9th cir. 2002); united states v. Sullivan, 85 f.3d 743 (1st cir. 1996); united states v. Boyd, 54 f.3d

868 (d.c. cir. 1995); united states v. Richter, 826 f.2d 206 (2nd cir. 1987), and for "was the other

officer telling the truth" questions on direct of officers, e.g., united states v. Sanchez-lima, 161f.3d 545 (9th cir. 1998).]

Asking a lay witness to provide a personal evaluation of evidence adduced by another witness,about which evidence the witness has no personal or expert knowledge

Assuming facts not in evidence (loaded question that prevents the witness from having theopportunity to deny the existence of the assumed fact)

Asked and answered (see repetitious) Authentication lacking or improper (failure to identify item of evidence, e.g., writing, and show

its logical relevance) (see failure to lay proper foundation)

Badgering the witness (also, quarreling with , arguing with, shouting at, bullying, looming over,and threatening)

Best evidence rule violated (see also, "original writing" rule) Beyond scope of direct (in jurisdictions that limit the scope of cross to the subject matter of the

direct and matters affecting credibility of the witness)

Bill of rights violated and exclusionary rule applicable [suggestion: print thebill of rightsfromthe CCJA page and put it in your trial notebook so that you may cite the court the language of a

particular right that has been violated by the government in obtaining evidence.] (see illegal

search and seizure, illegal identification, confession involuntary and without proper warnings)
http://criminaldefense.homestead.com/JurySelection.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/JurySelection.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/JurySelection.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Opening.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Opening.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Opening.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Direct.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Direct.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Direct.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Cross.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Cross.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Cross.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Cross.htmlhttp://juryargument.homestead.com/Objections.htmlhttp://juryargument.homestead.com/Objections.htmlhttp://juryargument.homestead.com/Objections.htmlhttp://juryargument.homestead.com/Objections.htmlhttp://juryargument.homestead.com/Objections.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://juryargument.homestead.com/Objections.htmlhttp://juryargument.homestead.com/Objections.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Cross.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Cross.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Direct.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Opening.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/JurySelection.html


2/5

Chain of custody not properly established (particularly when item is fungible and thus easilyalterable and no single witness can identify the item with personal knowledge)

Character evidence improper (e.g., to establish propensity) Confession obtained without required warning and voluntary waiver of rights underfifth and

sixth amendments

Confession involuntary (see involuntary confession)

Confession of co-defendant inadmissible [seebruton v. United states, 391 u.s. 123 (1968);grayv. Maryland, 523 u.s. 185 (1998);motions]

Confrontation Clauseof sixth amendment violated by prosecutor's offer of out-of-courtstatement for a hearsay purpose, notwithstanding that the out-of-court statement may appear

to fit within an exception or exemption to the hearsay rule [seecrawford v. Washington, 541

u.s. 36 (2004);motions]

Confrontation, face-to-face denied [coy v. Iowa, 487 u.s. 1012 (1988); but see,maryland v.Craig, 497 u.s. 836 (1990)]

Confusion of issues Compound question that contains two or more questions within a single question Comment on evidence by judge Comment on defendant's post-arrest silence for impeachment purposes when defendant

remains silent afterbeing given miranda warnings violates due process [doyle v. Ohio, 426 u.s.

610 (1976);but see jenkins v. Anderson, 447 u.s. 231 (1980) okay to impeach accused with with

prior prearrest silence, e.g., delay in reporting offense;anderson v. Charles, 447 u.s. 404 (1980)

okay to impeach accused with prior inconsistent statement after miranda warning. See

impeachment]

Continuing (running) objection Counsel at trial, right to proceed without [seefaretta v. California, 422 u.s. 806 (1975);

mckaskle v. Wiggins, 465 u.s. 168 (1984) cannot refuse stand-by counsel; but seemartinez v.

Court of appeal of california, 528 u.s. 152 (2000) no constitutional right to self-representation on

appeal. ]

Cross-examination to show bias improperly denied [seedavis v. Alaska, 415 u.s. 308 (1974).] Cross-examination denied by trial court limiting counsel's contact with witness [seedelaware v.

Van arsdall, 475 u.s. 673 (1986);perry v. Leeke, 488 u.s. 272 (1989)]

Cumulative evidence, needlessly, in that it fails to add to the probity of previously admittedevidence

Discovery violation [brady v. Maryland, 373 u.s. 83 (1963);united states v. Agurs, 427 u.s. 97(1976);united states v. Bagley, 473 u.s. 667 (1985);kyles v. Whitley, 514 u.s. 419 (1995);strickler

v. Greene, 527 u.s. 263 (1999) materiality, i.e., reasonable probability of different result,

required; seepretrial practice]

Displaying evidence prior to its introduction or continuing to display evidence after it has beenused

Expert testimony not admisssible (e.g., underlying facts or data insufficient; field of scientific,technological or other specialty of expertise not reliable and/or relevant based ondaubert

factors such as: (1) whether the principle has been tested, (2) the results of published peer

review, (3) error rates and (4) general acceptance; oldfrye (united states v. Frye, 293 f. 1013

(d.c. 1923)) rule requires general acceptance) [seeexpert]

Expert witness not competent Failure to lay proper foundation for admission of testimony, exhibit, or document (predicate)

(see lack of evidentiary prediate)
http://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/391/123.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/391/123.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/391/123.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-8653.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-8653.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-8653.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-8653.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/MotionPractice.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/MotionPractice.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/MotionPractice.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-9410http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-9410http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-9410http://criminaldefense.homestead.com/MotionPractice.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/MotionPractice.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/MotionPractice.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/487/1012.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/487/1012.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/487/1012.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/497/836.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/497/836.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/497/836.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/497/836.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/426/610.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/426/610.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/426/610.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/447/231.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/447/231.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/447/404.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/447/404.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/447/404.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Impeachment.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Impeachment.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/806.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/806.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/806.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/465/168.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/465/168.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-7809.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-7809.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-7809.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-7809.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/415/308.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/415/308.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/415/308.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/475/673.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/475/673.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/475/673.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/475/673.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/488/272.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/488/272.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/488/272.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/373/83.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/373/83.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/373/83.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/427/97.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/427/97.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/427/97.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/473/667.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/473/667.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/473/667.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10294.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10294.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10294.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-5864.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-5864.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-5864.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-5864.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Pretrial.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Pretrial.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Pretrial.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/509/579.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/509/579.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/509/579.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Experts.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Experts.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Experts.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Experts.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/509/579.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Pretrial.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-5864.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-5864.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10294.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/473/667.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/427/97.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/373/83.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/488/272.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/475/673.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/475/673.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/415/308.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-7809.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-7809.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/465/168.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/806.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Impeachment.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/447/404.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/447/231.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/426/610.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/497/836.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/497/836.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/487/1012.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/MotionPractice.htmlhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-9410http://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/MotionPractice.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-8653.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-8653.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/391/123.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.html


3/5

Final argument improper (see argument improper;objections to argument) Goading the defense into moving for a mistrial, prosecutorial conduct intended to and in fact

succeeding in [note: oregon v. Kennedy, 456 u.s. 667 (1982) established that where the

prosecutor's conduct is intended to "goad" the defense into moving for a mistrial, the defense

may successfully claim that a retrial is barred by the fifth amendment protection againstdouble

jeopardy. The idea behind this ground for objection is that prosecutors shouldn't be permitted

by intentional misconduct to force a mistrial that will allow them to retry the accused when

conditions are better, e.g., a missing witness may be found, a more conviction-oriented jury may

be empanelled, etc. In my home state, texas, the rule also applies by case law to "reckless"

goading.]

Habit not established, improper habit evidence because Hearsay, question calls for or answer contains (1- history of the rule against hearsay - treason

trial of sir walter raleigh),(2- various exceptions to rule against hearsay discussed)

Hearsay within hearsay Hearsay, evidence contains Hearsay, evidence is the result of and is based upon Hearsay, even though the statement fits into a recognized hearsay exception, the confrontation

clause (applies only when the prosecution offers hearsay against the accused) bars use of a

testimonialout-of-court statement by an unavailable witness whom the defendant has not had

the opportunity to cross-examine, irrespective of whether the statement is deemed reliable;

the statement is inadmissible as uncrossexamined [seecrawford v. Washington,541 u.s. 36

(2004)]

Illegal search and seizure in violation offourth amendment Illegalidentification Involuntary confession in violation ofdue process or law Immaterial in that it is of no consequence to any issue in the case (couple with irrelevant) Impeachment improper ( improper opinion or reputation character evidence, improper proof of

prior conviction, improper foundation for proof of witness' prior inconsistent statement,

improper proof of untruthfulness, impeachment with an irrelevant or collateral matter)

Incompetency of witness (e.g., lack of perception, lack of memory, inability to understandnature and obligation of oath, inability to communicate in language of court)

Irrelevant in the sense that it does not make a fact of consequence to the lawsuit anymore orless likely

Judicial notice improper Judge asking question that improperly influences the jury and/or interferes with counsel's

presentation of case ( see comment on weight of evidence - tolerated in some jurisdictions, e.g.,

federal court)

Lack of evidentiary predicate (foundation) for admission of testimony, exhibit, or document Lack of personal knowledge (witness, other than expert, does not have first-hand information) Lay witness opinion and/or inference improper; not helpful to clear understanding of witness'

testimony or determination of fact in issue, not rationally based on perception of witness (e.g.,

see rule 701 FRE)

Leading question (suggests or coaxes desired answer) Legal conclusion (questions calls for or answer contains) Limited purpose, admissible only for a (and offered generally) Misleading the jury Misstatement (mischaracterization) of evidence by counsel (or witness)
http://www.juryargument.homestead.com/Objections.htmlhttp://www.juryargument.homestead.com/Objections.htmlhttp://www.juryargument.homestead.com/Objections.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/456/667.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/456/667.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.law.harvard.edu/publications/evidenceiii/articles/note-treasontrial.htmhttp://www.law.harvard.edu/publications/evidenceiii/articles/note-treasontrial.htmhttp://www.law.harvard.edu/publications/evidenceiii/articles/note-treasontrial.htmhttp://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/405/405lect11.htmhttp://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/405/405lect11.htmhttp://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/405/405lect11.htmhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-9410http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-9410http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-9410http://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/eyewitnessmisidentification.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/eyewitnessmisidentification.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/eyewitnessmisidentification.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/eyewitnessmisidentification.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-9410http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/405/405lect11.htmhttp://www.law.harvard.edu/publications/evidenceiii/articles/note-treasontrial.htmhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://www.stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/456/667.htmlhttp://www.juryargument.homestead.com/Objections.html


4/5

Non-responsive answer Offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere inadmissible (see rule 410 FRE) Opening statement improper ( e.g., argumentative, invades province of court by providing

instructions on law, states personal opinion or belief of counsel, prosecutor speculating about

defense evidence) [opening statementwill provide a longer list of possible objections.]

Opinion on ultimate issue

Prior bad acts, misconduct, wrongs, or other crimes (uncharged misconduct, extraneousoffenses) improper to show propensity

Prior conviction inadmissible Prior sexual behavior improper Personal knowledge of lay witness lacking ( see lack of personal knowldge) Post-arrest silence against the defendant, use of defendant's - [seeabove re comment on post-

arrest silence; see alsodoyle v. Ohio, 426 u.s. 610 (1976);fletcher v. Weir, 455 u.s. 603 (1982)]

Privileged communication (e.g., attorney-client; doctor-patient (if any); clergy; informant'sidentity; spousal capacity; spousal or marital communication; self-incrimination)

Question has been answered by witness and is now giving an answer tht goes beyond thequestion posed (see witness has answered)

Question on cross-examination goes beyond scope of direct and issues of witness credibility(applies only in jurisdictions, e.g., federal court, where scope of cross is limited to subject of

direct and issues related to witness credibility)

Remainder rule, evidence of writing or recorded statement should not in fairness be consideredcontemporaneously under the

Relevance lacking (see irrelevant) ( e.g., has no tendency to make existence of any fact ofconsequence to the case more or less probable than it would be without the evidence)

Religious beliefs or opinions of witness inadmissible to show witness' credibility impaired orenhanced (e.g., see rule 610 FRE)

Repetitious (see asked and answered) Requirement of original violated ( see best evidence rule, original document rule) Sentence increase by the trial judge above statutory maximum violates sixth amendment right

to trial by jury [ seeblakely v. Washington, 542 u.s. 296 (2004)]

Sequestration of witnesses ("the rule" of witnesses) violation (as when evidence that anotherwitness has made notations upon is presented to a testifiying witness)

Shackling, binding , gagging, not appropriate under circumstances [seeillinois v. Allen, 397 u.s.337 (1970)]

Sidebar remark ( sidebar remarks are statements of counsel for one party not addressed to thecourt and typically made while counsel for another party is examining a witness, arguing a

question to the court or addressing the jury.)

Speculation (conjecture, guess) Suppression hearing testimony of accused not admissible at trial [simmons v. United states,

390 u.s. 377 (1968), e.g., testimony given by defendant at suppression hearing to establish

"standing" may not be used against her at trial on the issue of guilt; but seeharris v. New york,

401 u.s. 222 (1971) which allows the use of statements obtained in violation of miranda for

impeachment purposes.]

Trial in absentia not permitted where defendant not present at beginning of trial; accused hasright to be present [seecrosby v. United states, 506 u.s. 255 (1993);united states v. Gagnon, 470

u.s. 522 (1985)]

Undue delay
http://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Opening.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Opening.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Opening.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/426/610.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/426/610.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/426/610.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/455/603.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/455/603.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/455/603.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-1632.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-1632.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-1632.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/397/337.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/397/337.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/397/337.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/390/377.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/390/377.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/390/377.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/401/222.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/401/222.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/401/222.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/506/255.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/506/255.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/506/255.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/407/522.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/407/522.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/407/522.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/407/522.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/506/255.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/401/222.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/390/377.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/397/337.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-1632.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/455/603.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/426/610.htmlhttp://criminaldefense.homestead.com/Opening.html


5/5

Unfairly prejudicial (e.g. rule 403 FRE - potential danger of "unfair" prejudice substantiallyoutweighs probative value - objecting party has bop; object that the otherwise arguably relevant

evidence unfairly exaggerates the truth and tends to improperly stir the passions or sympathy of

the jurors) even though arguably relevant

Vague

Waste of time Wearing prison garb violates due process [seeestelle v. Williams, 425 u.s. 501 (1976)] Witness has answered the question and is now volunteering an answer to a question that hasn't

been asked
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/425/501.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/425/501.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/425/501.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/us/425/501.html

70 generic objections

Documents