It is the usual stuff of movies, the defense lawyer rising up to forcefully say “Objection, your honor” and then launching into an impassioned argument why a certain question must not be answered by the witness. And this is the one question that turns the tables on the prosecution such that his client is freed. It is fertile ground for theatrics by practitioners, particularly when the client is around. A lawyer does not seem to be earning his keep unless he speaks at lot during trial. And so it goes, but objections do serve a purpose in the dispensation of justice.
Objections can and should be made on quite a few occasions such as in the pleadings but this discussion will be limited to those made during the course of a trial. Objections are, in the main, covered by the Rules on Evidence (Rules 128 to 134, Rules of Court) which apply to both civil and criminal proceedings. The “rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these rules.” (2a) (Section 2, Rule 128)”
Types of Objections
The first rule for objections is that you must be quick to make them. An objection which is not made in a timely fashion may result in the admission of testimony or evidence which may be unfavorable to your case. Hence, a practitioner has to be quick and adept in identifying whether a question is proper or not, and registering any objection before it can be answered.
As stated in the Rules, “Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.” (Section 36, Rule 132).
What are the typical objections? First would be the objection that the question is “leading.” Ordinarily, the facts should come from the witness. But a lawyer can phrase a question in such a way that it points to the answers that he wants to get. If in his question, the lawyer has somehow added facts not yet admitted, then the question is leading.
Objections can be made on the ground that the evidence sought is irrelevant, incompetent, or immaterial. The question’s logical and direct connection to the issue must be apparent. But relevancy, competency and materiality can still be established after the objection is sustained.[1]
A question can be objected to on the ground that it is vague. If your witness has already testified, you can object to a question if it has already been answered. This is just in case the witness makes a mistake and varies his answer, which can be taken against you.
Multiple questions and questions where the basis has not been laid can be objected to as well. You can object to a question if the witness is not competent to testify on a particular matter, if it is covered by privilege, that it calls for an opinion, that it is not covered by the pleadings, that the matter is not covered by the pleadings, is not the best evidence, calls for hearsay, or if the question is misleading.[2]
Objections that are sustained does not necessarily bar the evidence sought to be presented. But it can rattle your opponent no end if his questions are put on hold one after the other. Generally, counsel goes over the testimony of a witness before trial by following a set of questions to ask that are in order. Once his questions get caught by a valid objection, he may be hard pressed on how to establish the facts he aims to prove against you.
But your lawyer need not raise an objection all the time if it is the same type or class of questions previously objected to. He can make of record a continuing objection. “When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the question being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made, whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class of questions.” (Section 37).
All is not lost, however, if the witness proves quicker to the draw, answering a question before an objection can be made. In such an instance, counsel can still ask that the question be stricken from the record. The Rules provide that should “a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and such objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record.” Answers that are “incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper” can also be stricken (Section 39).
While this is available, you cannot underestimate the damage that may be done by answers already given although stricken out at a later time. It is still more advisable that strong words against your case are never heard by the judge.
Ruling on an objection
The judge has to make a ruling “immediately after the objection is made, unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling.” But the judge’s reason for “sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated.” And it is only when the “objection is based on two or more grounds” that “a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon.” (38a) (Section 38, Rule 132)”
It is important that all the objections be made of record even if the trial judge disallows all or most of them. This is because even if he rules against you in the end, your objections may still be appreciated by the appellate court when it goes over the case file. You could argue in your appeal that the judge below erred in overruling your objections to the evidence which was allowed to be presented. But if the objections were not formalized, this makes it harder for you to argue the case before a higher court. Normally, the court then will only look at the records and if there is nothing there, your arguments will go for naught.
Excluded Evidence
What happens if the shoe is on the other foot, and you are unable to present testimony that would have bolstered your case due to your opponent’s objections? You have to make a “tender of excluded evidence,” and you do this by “stating for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.” (n) (Section 40). A “tender” is important, for the same reason why objections should be made of record, as a tool for appeal.
The next time you get to watch a trial, you may now appreciate more how important objections are. A trial presents two sides of a story and objections get to dictate in some measure what details get to be heard and admitted by the court and how the story will end, with you either winning or losing.
[1] Jacinto, An Introduction to Trial Practice and Technique (1990), p. 221.
No comments:
Post a Comment