These definitions are simplified to help understand the main idea of each objection and better understand what you were taught!
Definition: an out of court statement made to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Essentially, it's like a rumor. The definition is in the word Hearsay, as you hear it then say it.
*NOTE: If the witness is testifying about something they themselves said out of court, it is still hearsay.*
There are multiple exceptions and exemptions (it is not hearsay) for hearsay which makes is part of why it is the hardest objection. Go to helpful links to learn more about these exceptions!
Example: "My friend told me the defendant ran the red light."
Explanation: this would be hearsay because the witness is talking about something they heard out of court.
Non Example: "The defendant said 'I ran the red light."
Explanation: This is an exemption under rule 801.d.2, admission by part opponent, because the out of court statement being referred to was made by the defendant.
Signals: when someone says words like heard, told, said, etc, it is very likely the statement is hearsay. Think HEAR-say.
Definition: “Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Basically, if the evidence contributes to the case in ANY way it is relevant; if not, object to relevance.
Example: The witness starts talking about the color of their shoes.
Explanation: The color of the witnesses shoes has no contribution to the case at all.
Non-Example: Foundational questions at the beginning of a direct such as, "Where do you work?" and "Where do you live?"
Explanation: These questions lay the needed foundation for the direct. Some people do object to these questions which is incorrect.
In Trial: Think to yourself, "is this relevant?"
Definition: Even if the evidence/statement is relevant, if it is SUBSTANTIALLY more prejudicial it is more prejudicial than probative.
Example: if a witness says "the blood gushed out of their head"
Explanation: The word gushed is not needed and only serves the purpose of inflaming the passions of the jury.
Non-Example: A poem written by the defendant about murder
Explanation: the probative value outweighs the prejudicial value because it is tying the defendant to the murder
Definition: Any question that requires the witness to speculate or guess is improper.
Example: "The defendant was angry"
Explanation: the witness is speculating on the emotions of the defendant.
Non-Example: "I thought the defendant looked mad because his eyebrows were raised"
Explanation: the witness is testifying on their thoughts based on what they saw.
In Trial: Think, "is the witness guessing?"
Definition: Before an exhibit or opinion can be admitted as evidence, the proper foundation must be established. An objection should be made when the exhibit is offered into evidence or when a witness is asked for an opinion. If requested, the objecting party must explain why the foundation is insufficient if that explanation was not included in the objection.
Example: The defense enters in an exhibit without asking "Is it a fair and accurate copy?"
Explanation: the proper foundation is lacking in order to enter an exhibit.
Non-Example: The defense asks all the proper questions to enter an exhibit.
Definition: Lack of Personal Knowledge is when the witness does not have the knowledge to testify on a topic. Lack of Personal Knowledge and Speculation are very close together.
Example: the witness says an exact measurement without having any knowledge of the true measurments.
Explanation: the witness has no knowledge of measurements.
Non-example: "The defendant was angry"
Explanation: This is speculation, the witness is guessing on emotions.
Definition: Prior bad acts are not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity with that character. Basically, you can't say the defendant is guilty because they have done something similar in the past
Example: "The defendant had previously burned a building down, correct?"
Explanation: The attorney is talking about past events, which is not admissible.
Non-Example: "The defendant had a financial reason to commit the crime."
Explanation: This is not talking about the defendant's past.