Objections in mock trial can only be made during the direct and cross

examination. Statements made by attorneys during opening or closing arguments cannot

be objected to. 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.

One of the most difficult aspects of making an objection is that an attorney often needs to
react very quickly. The process of making an objection is twofold:

First, an attorney must be paying close attention to what questions are being asked,
and what answers are being given. If the attorney hears something that is objectionable,
they must then make a split second decision on whether or not to object. 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. This
process may seem complicated and difficult to a beginning mock trialer, but with practice
and experience, making objections can become second nature. In order to actually object
to evidence, all an attorney has to do is stand up and say “Objection.” It is perfectly
reasonable to interrupt opposing counsel when making an objection.

Next, the attorney must state to the judge what the exact objection is. For example,
“Your honor, this testimony includes hearsay.” At this point, the judge may ask for a
further explanation of the objection, or may instead address opposing counsel and ask for
a response. Be ready to argue any objections to the judge if prompted. Some judges enjoy
hearing more argument from attorneys while others may rule without any input. Be
conscientious of what the judge prefers and do not offer more information than necessary.
If the judge sides with the attorney objecting, the objection will be “sustained”. If the
judge agrees with the opposing counsel, the objection will be “overruled”. When the
judge makes a ruling, be ready to accept it and move on. It is never a good idea to argue
with the judge.

Let’s now take a look at the two types of objections in Mock Trial.

Types of Objections in Mock Trial

A. OBJECTIONS TO QUESTIONS
The first type of objection is an objection to the form of the question asked, or answer
given. When an attorney makes this type of objection, they are objecting to the nature of
the question or answer, but not to its substance. Although equally valid, some judges
often prefer to hear less of these objections. This does not mean one should avoid making
them, but it simply requires the attorney to be conscientious and aware of the judge’s
attitude. The following are the most frequently used objections of this type:

Leading Question
This objection is made when counsel asks a leading question during direct examination.
A leading question is a question which actually suggests an answer. Leading question are
allowed during cross examination, but not during direct.

Example: “At 8 pm that day, you were at the deli, correct?”

Compound Question
This objection is made when counsel asks a compound question. A compound question is
a question that actually asks multiple things, all linked by “and” or “or”.

Example: “Did you determine the time of death by interviewing witnesses and by
requesting the autopsy report written by the coroner?”

Question Calls for Narrative/Narrative Answer

This objection is made when either a witness begins telling a narrative as part of their
answer, or counsel’s question calls for a narrative. It is admissible for a witness to testify
about what happened, but they must do so in response to a question. This objection exists
to prevent long winded witness answers. If a witness has answered the question, but
continues telling a story, this objection should be made.

Example: “First thing I did that was get up, and go to work. It was fairly normal day at
work until the robbery, which happened at around 1 pm. After that the police came, and
began interviews. I was taken to the station, and was there until around 10 pm. After this,
I came back home….”

Argumentative Question
This objection is made when counsel begins arguing with a witness, badgering a witness
or becoming overly aggressive. This objection is made by an attorney to protect a witness
during cross examination. The objection is fairly subjective in terms of what is
considered argumentative. Generally, a judge will allow more aggressive questioning if
counsel is cross examining the defendant.

Example: “How can you sit here and lie to the court about your attitude towards
the victim?”

Asked and Answered Question

This objection is made when counsel has asked a question and received an answer, and
asks the same question again. If an answer is given, a new question must be asked.
Counsel can ask a question multiple times if the witness is not giving a full answer, is
being uncooperative or unresponsive.

Example: “Did you stop at the stop sign on 5th and Main?”, “No”, “So, to be clear, you
ran the stop sign?”

Vague and Ambiguous Question/Answer

This objection is made when either the question asked or answer given is vague and
ambiguous in nature. This objection can be used to help a witness answer a confusing
question, or help an attorney get a more precise response.

Example: “When did you see it happen?”

Non-Responsive Answer
This objection is made when a witness does not answer the question being asked by the
attorney. This objection can help an attorney corral the witness and get a straight answer
to questions the witness may be trying to avoid. Be careful to avoid making this objection
when the witness simply gives a different answer than what was expected or desired.
Example: “Weren’t you the last person the victim saw on the night of his death?”, “I had
nothing to do with that!”

Objections to Testimony
The second type of objection is an objection regarding the substance of the testimony or
evidence being presented. An attorney makes this type of objection to try and exclude the
information given by the witness from the trial. An attorney may desire to keep out
certain evidence or testimony for several reasons. For example, it may detrimental to the
case, it may be false and unverifiable, or it may simply be inadmissible in court.
Substantive objections are generally more difficult to make, and require more legal
understanding on the part of the attorney. The following are the most common
substantive objections in mock trial:

Relevance of Answer/Question
This objection is made when an attorney believes that irrelevant evidence to the case is
being brought up. There are several reasons why irrelevant evidence should be excluded.
Primarily, it contributes nothing to the case, it may sometimes reflect negatively on either
side, and it also wastes precious time which should be used to tackle the real questions.
An attorney can object to an irrelevant question asked by opposing counsel, or to an
answer which is either in parts, or altogether, irrelevant. Use discretion with this
objection, and don’t overuse, as what is relevant can be highly subjective.

Example: “The victim’s favorite color was yellow, wasn’t it?”

Question Lacks Foundation

This objection is made when opposing counsel asks a question before establishing
foundation for that question. If the objection is sustained, the judge will require counsel
to “lay a foundation” which involves backtracking and asking a more general question.
This objection is most often encountered while describing circumstances during direct
examination. Often attorneys will cut foundational questions at the start of examination in
an effort to save time, so this is where most of the objections will be made.

Example: “What did you see at the Broadway diner?” (No previous question asking
about witnesses location, position, etc.)

Lacks Personal Knowledge/Speculation

This objection is made when either an attorney asks the witness a question of which they
have no personal knowledge, or when a witness begins to testify about something they
have not directly observed (speculation). Witnesses are only allowed to testify about their
own direct experiences and thoughts. Testifying as to what they believe may have
happened, or about another person’s state of mind, are all considered improper evidence.
The only exception in mock trial is that expert witnesses, or those who are called to the
stand because of particular knowledge or experience, are usually given greater exemption
from this objection. It would not be speculation for a signature authenticator to testify the
defendant is guilty of fraud based on that expert’s analysis and professional opinion.

Example: The witness hears a gunshot from around a corner, runs, and sees the victim
dead, and the defendant holding a gun. The following is speculation: “I believe the
defendant shot the victim”.
 Creation of a Material Fact
This objection is made when an attorney believes that a witness has made a factual error
in their testimony regarding the case. This objection can also be applied if a question
extends past the scope of the witness’ statement and that it “calls for the creation of a
material fact by the witness”. Generally, this objection should only be used as a last
resort, and for major factual missteps. If the witness makes a minor error without huge
significance to the case, this can be brought up during cross examination; the word
“material” in the title of the objection suggests that this objection should only be used for
errors that are relevant and meaningful for the case at hand. Additionally, even if a
witness tells a significant falsehood on the stand, it will always be better to take up the
issue on cross examination, and impeach the witness through the use of their own witness
statement. The effect of this is twofold, in that the witness is shown to have lied, and the
judge sees the greater skill of the crossing attorney. The CMF objection should be made
in the situation when an attorney believes they will have insufficient time for cross
examination, or in the case they believe a more immediate and forceful course of action is
necessary.

Example: “I was home with my girlfriend until 7 pm on Saturday”, “But in your witness
statement, didn’t you state you were home only until 6 pm?”

Improper Character Evidence

This objection is made when improper character evidence has been given as testimony in
court. Improper character evidence is when character evidence (think general personality
traits) is used to show how a person acted in a specific situation. There are three
exceptions to this rule in which this kind of character evidence is permissible:

 If this evidence is offered by the defense and applied to the character and actions of the
defendant to prove innocence, it is admissible.
 If this evidence is offered by the defense and applied to the character and actions of the
victim to prove innocence, it is admissible.
 If this evidence is offered to show dishonesty or a tendency to lie by any witness, it is
admissible. In this situation, the opposing counsel may rebut with positive character
evidence to show the contrary.

Example: “The defendant was always rude to me, and particularly so on the day of the
murder.”

Lay Witness Opinion

This objection is made when lay witnesses (witnesses who are not qualified as experts
and do not personal experience), testify with personal inferences or subjective statements.
Opinion testimony is only admissible when it is based on perceptions/observations made
with the witness’s five senses, and is helpful to clearer understanding of the witness’s
testimony. This objection is similar to Lacks Personal Knowledge/Speculation, and
sometimes can be used interchangeably.

Example: “I believe the defendant was in a crazed state of mind.”

Hearsay
This objection is made when a witness testifies about a statement made by another
person, and uses contents of the other person’s statement to prove a fact true or false.
This kind of testimony is considered hearsay because the actual declarant of the statement
in question is neither under oath on the stand, nor will be cross examined. Therefore,
hearsay is considered unreliable and inadmissible except in limited circumstances.
Because of several exceptions to the hearsay rule, this objection is often the most difficult
for new attorneys to understand. The following are some of the more common
exceptions in which hearsay is allowed for the truth of the matter:

Declaration against interest: Hearsay is allowed if the statement in question is against

the declarant’s economic, legal, criminal, civil or general interests.

Excited utterance: Hearsay is allowed if the statement in question is made by the

declarant during or shortly after a startling event from which the declarant is still
influenced, and describes or explains said event.

State of mind: Hearsay is allowed if the statement in question reveals the declarant’s state
of mind, emotional or physical condition at the time of the statement.

Records made in the regular course of business: Hearsay is allowed if the statement in
question was made in the form of a record in the regular course of a business or
government procedure.

Prior inconsistent statement: Hearsay is allowed if the statement in question is

inconsistent with the declarant’s trial testimony

Reputation of a person’s character in the community: Hearsay is allowed if the statement

in question is evidence of a person’s reputation or character within a community or
group.

Dying declaration: Hearsay is allowed if the statement in question was made by a dying
person about their cause or circumstances of death, with the declarant’s personal
knowledge and a sense of impending death.

Admission by party opponent: Hearsay is allowed if the statement in question was made
by a person, and is being offered against that person by an opposing party during trial.

One of the key points regarding hearsay in mock trial that is often overlooked is the
precise definition of what makes another person’s statement inadmissible. Another
statement is only hearsay if it is being offered for the truth of the matter. If a witness is
testifying to another’s statement, not to show that it is true, but instead, for example, to
justify a subsequent action, then the testimony is not hearsay and does not require an
exception to the hearsay rule. When dealing with statements of witnesses other than their
own, attorneys must be very careful, and must be prepared to defend the testimony
against opposing hearsay objections.

A judge will also be more likely to entertain arguments for and against a substantive
objection, so attorneys must be ready to respond to a judge’s questions with sound, legal
analysis. If an attorney strongly believes that a judge has not given them a fair
opportunity to explain their objection, or to respond to an opposing objection, it is
reasonable to ask, “May I be heard your Honor?”, or “May I respond to the objection
your Honor?”. If the judge denies the request, the attorney should move on but take note
of the preference and avoid asking again.
The key to mastering objections in mock trial is learning how to make objections and
how to defend against them. Both of these skills can be improved through practice. At all
times during team practice, attorneys should pay attention and listen for possible
objections. Similarly, attorneys must be prepared to scrutinize their own direct and cross
examinations and be ready to defend against any possible objections raised by opposing
counsel. Objections may seem stressful at first, but they are genuinely one of the most
fun and rewarding aspects of the attorney experience. Objections help keep a trial
dynamic, and allow attorneys to think on their feet and show of their legal arguing skills.
If an attorney takes the time to practice and master this facet of mock trial, the returns
will be exponential, both in terms of team performance and personal satisfaction during
competition.
Rule 132, Section 36. OBJECTION – Objection to evidence offered orally must be made
immediately after the offer is made.
Land Bank vs. Veronica (GR 176692, June 27, 2012)
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral
examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds
therefore shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within 3 days
after notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by the
court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified.

Specific grounds of objection.

The usual grounds for objection are the following:
1. Objection to the question for being leading;
2. Objection to the question for it calls for hearsay evidence;
3. Objection to the question for lack of basis, or it assumes a fact not
established;
4. Objection to the question for it invades the field of confidential
communication;
5. Objection to the question for being vague;
6. Objection to the question for it calls for a conclusion of law;
7. Objection to the question for it calls for a conclusion of fact;
8. Objection to the question for being argumentative;
9. Objection to the question for the proper foundation has not been
laid;
10. Objection to the question for it calls for the opinion of the witness;
11. Objection to the question for being misleading;
12. Objection to the question for it has already been answered;
13. Objection to the question for the witness is incompetent;
14. Objection to the question for being inadmissible under the parol
evidence rule;
15. Objection to the question for it attempts to elicit from the witness
self-serving evidence;
16. Objection to the question for the document offered is self-serving;
17. Objection to the question for it tends to elicit evidence which is not
the best evidence;
18. Objection to the question for it calls for parol evidence of an alleged
agreement under the statutes of fraud;
19. Objection to the question for being improper in cross-examination;
20. Objection to the question for being improper in re-direct
examination; and
21. Objection to the question for being improper in re-cross
examination.

Effect of Failure to Object

The failure to object to incompetent evidence has been held not to render other incompetent
evidence admissible in corroboration thereof. Nor by having failed to object to the admission of
improper evidence at one time does a party lose or waive the right to object to like evidence
when it is offered at a later stage of the proceedings.

Premature Objection
An objection to evidence cannot be made in advance of the offer of the evidence sought to be
introduced.
Example: An objection to the testimony of a witness on the ground that he is disqualified, before
such disqualification is shown, cannot be availed of because of subsequent proof of
disqualification.

Waiver of objection to oral evidence

1. An objection may be expressly waived.
2. Implied waiver;

Examples:
a. Failure to make the objection at the proper time
b. Curing of an error of admission by the opponent’s subsequent use of evidence
similar to that already objected to or prior use of similar inadmissible evidence
c. Testimony stricken out during the direct examination, where on cross-
examination, counsel asked questions from the witness in connection with
answers given in the direct examination.

Effect of waiver of objection or failure to object

Failure to object evidence at time it is offered is a waiver of objections to its admissibility.
The waiver is operative, not only as to substantially the same testimony given in other portions
of the examination of the witness and subsequent proceedings on the trial, but also as affecting
the right to have questions of its admissibility reviewed on appeal or writ of error.
OBJECTIONS TO FORM OF QUESTION
Objections that are aimed at the structure of the question—such as the choice of words, ambiguity, or other
problems with the question that make it unclear or likely to confuse or mislead the witness.
Often, objections regarding form can be overcome by simply rephrasing the question so that it is no longer
objectionable.
Here are a few common examples of form objections:

Leading
When asking questions on direct examination, the general rule is that leading questions are not allowed,
except for initial background questions and under limited circumstances.
A leading question is one that suggests the particular answer that the attorney is looking to elicit. Here are
examples of leading vs. non-leading questions:

To learn more about leading questions and how to overcome them by rephrasing, check out Objection to
Leading Question? Try Rephrasing
By contrast, leading questions are generally permitted on cross examination and when dealing with adverse or
hostile witnesses.
In fact, leading questions can be very effective in cross examination because they can force the witness to
answer “yes or no” questions without providing wiggle room to elaborate or explain away unfavorable facts.

Asked and answered

The question has already been answered and therefore should not have to be answered a second time.
Sometimes, attorneys will ask the same—or substantially the same—question numerous times to emphasize it
for purposes of making it clear to the jury. This is improper.

Misstates testimony
Attorneys often attempt to mischaracterize, misstate, or “embellish” a witness’ testimony to suit the narrative
they are looking to advance. For example:
Witness: She got back up and there was blood on her chin.
Attorney #1: As the blood was oozing out of her chin, did she look panicked?
Attorney #2: Objection, misstates testimony.
You see what Attorney #1 attempted to do here? The witness’ testimony mentioned nothing about “oozing”; in
fact, there is no indication based on this testimony that the blood even came from the witness . . .

Calls for a narrative

Attorneys may ask open-ended questions, especially on direct examination. However, if a question is so broad
that it essentially calls for the witness to give a lengthy narrative, an objection may be made.

Calls for speculation

The question asks the witness to speculate or guess as to something that is not within his or her personal
knowledge. Lay witnesses (i.e., non-experts) may testify as to their personal knowledge but generally not to
matters outside their first-hand knowledge.
This objection is commonly raised when the question asks the witness to interpret someone else’s state of
mind. Here is an example:
Witness: A man with a glorious ponytail came in and bought a newspaper with his credit card.
Attorney #1: Why did the man use his credit card instead of paying with cash?
Attorney #2: Objection, calls for speculation.
Judge: Sustained.
Attorney #1: Why did the man have a ponytail?
Attorney #2: Objection, calls for speculation—and irrelevant.
Judge: Sustained. Counsel, move on.

Compound question
A question is compound if it consists of two or more questions bundled into one. For example:
Attorney #1: Was Fred good at his job and well-liked by his coworkers?
Attorney #2: Objection, compound.
Judge: Sustained—can we break that down?
Attorney #1: Was the defendant good at his job?
Witness: Yes, he was.
Attorney #1: Was he well-liked by his coworkers?
Witness: No, he was actually a real jerk. His coworkers hated his guts.

Argumentative
The question consists of arguments, interpretation of the evidence, or recitation of facts.
This objection is often made to questions that attempt to influence the witness’ testimony by inserting the
attorney’s interpretation of the evidence into the question. Here is an example:
Attorney #1: How often did you get your brakes checked prior to the accident?
Witness: Twice a week.
Attorney #1: You expect this jury to believe that you got under your car, twice a week, every week, to
check your brakes?
Attorney #2: Objection, argumentative.
Judge: Sustained.

Harassing / abusing / “badgering” the witness

An objection for “badgering the witness” is typically made when the attorney is resorting to personal attacks
and crossing the line into comments and suggestions that are insulting, demeaning, or hostile.
This tactic is sometimes done to provoke an emotional response or in the hope of “scoring points” with the
jury (note: this can—and often does—backfire!). Here is an example:
Attorney #1: In fact, the whole reason you married Mr. Moneybags is that you’re a money-grubbing
gold digger, isn’t that true?
Attorney #2: Objection!
Judge: Sustained! Counsel, conduct yourself professionally or I will cite you for contempt!

Confusing
Objections to confusing questions are typically made when the question is unclear, ambiguous, vague, or, well
. . . just plain confusing. Remember—if a question doesn’t make sense to you, it might not make sense to the
witness or jury either . . .

Non-responsive
An objection for non-responsiveness can be made by any party to a witness’ answer that does not answer the
question, rambles, or gives testimony that goes beyond the scope of the question.
Attorney #1: In what year did you meet Bozo?
Witness: We’ve known each other since we were students at clown school. A lot of people don’t know
that Bozo was quite the ladies’ man . . . anyway, when he got back from his second tour in Afghanistan,
after his divorce, I . . .
Attorney #2: Objection, non-responsive.
Judge: Sustained. Mr. Pennywise, please answer the question.
Witness: Huh? What was the question?
Attorney #1: How long have you known Bozo?
Witness: 12 years . . . I’ve known him since the very day he won his third-straight hog-wrestling contest,
and I’m telling you, no way Bozo is guilty of any of these charges . . .
Attorney #2: Objection! Non-responsive!
Judge: Sustained.

OBJECTIONS TO SUBSTANCE OF QUESTION

Objections to substance are directed at the information the question is seeking to elicit. Attorneys making
objections to substance primarily seek to exclude testimony that is inadmissible (e.g., hearsay or
certain character evidence), improper, irrelevant, or substantially prejudicial.
Here are a few common examples of making objections to the substance of testimony:

Lacks foundation
If a question is asked without first establishing that the witness has a basis to answer it (i.e., personal
knowledge or familiarity with the topic), an objection may lie for lack of foundation.
This often happens when the examining attorney is going too fast and not asking preliminary questions to
demonstrate the witness’ familiarity with the facts.
Attorney #1: Are you a tennis player?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney #1: What percentage of a tennis ball is made of rubber?
Attorney #2: Objection, lacks foundation.
Judge: Sustained.
For purposes of this example, there was no testimony establishing that (1) rubber is used in the production of
tennis balls; or (2) that the witness has any knowledge regarding the manufacturing or composition of tennis
balls. Why would he, based on what you have just read?
Therefore, the attorney had not yet sufficiently laid a foundation for the question (in other words, she was
going too fast!). Now, let’s assume that the attorney resumes her line of questioning to lay a proper foundation:
Attorney #1: Do you know what tennis balls are made of?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney #1: How do you know that?
Witness: Before retiring in April, I worked as a floor supervisor at a tennis ball factory for 20 years.
Attorney #1: As part of your duties as a floor supervisor, were you involved in supervising the
manufacture of tennis balls?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney #1: Did you become familiar with the materials used to manufacture tennis balls?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney #1: What materials are used to manufacture tennis balls?
Witness: Mainly rubber, with some wool.
Attorney #1: What percentage of a tennis ball is made of rubber?
Witness: I’d say about 85-90%.
If your opponent objects for lack of foundation, DO NOT PANIC! Catch your breath, back up a few steps,
and ask the witness questions to show the court that the witness is qualified to testify about the subject you are
asking about!

Assumes facts not in evidence

If a question includes a fact that has not yet been presented, it is vulnerable to an objection for assuming facts
not in evidence. This objection is similar to lack of foundation, and the two are often made at the same time.
Here is an example:
Attorney #1: Where were you at the time of the accident?
Witness: I was standing at the bus stop right near the southeast corner of the intersection of Main Street
and 7th Avenue.
Attorney #1: What did the driver of the black van throw out of the window?
Attorney #2: Objection, the question assumes facts not in evidence. And it’s a leading question.
Judge: Sustained.
Here, there was no testimony prior to this question that: (1) there was a black van, (2) the witness could see the
driver, or that (3) the witness saw the driver throwing something out of the window.
As with the previous example, Attorney #1 could then go back and ask additional questions to bring those facts
into evidence first before asking what the witness saw the driver of the black van throw out the window.

Irrelevant
In order to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Although every jurisdiction may define “relevance”
differently, most states define relevance similarly or identically to Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence, which provides that “[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less
probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.”
For example:
Attorney #1: You used to date the plaintiff, Miss Andrews?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney #1: Why did you break up?
Attorney #2: Objection, irrelevant!
[Conversation moves to sidebar]
Attorney #2: This is irrelevant. The reason for the break-up has nothing to do with this personal injury
lawsuit.
Attorney #1: Your Honor, this is relevant to prove bias. I expect the witness to testify that he broke up
with my client because she cheated on him and emptied his bank accounts. This witness has a strong
bias against my client, which calls into question the veracity of his testimony. The jury should be allowed
to hear about the reasons for the breakup because it shows that he is not a fair and impartial witness
because of his anger and disappointment over her actions.
Judge: Overruled. The question is relevant on the issue of bias and “fair game” for impeachment
purposes.

Unfair prejudice
“Unfair prejudice” may be defined differently in each jurisdiction, but many states model their rules after Rule
403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, providing that certain testimony or evidence, even if relevant, may be
excluded if it is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to a party to the case.

Hearsay
The rules barring hearsay evidence (and the dozens of exceptions and exclusions) is far too complicated of a
topic to discuss in this article. A short and over-simplified explanation of these rules is that an (1) out-of-court
statement that is (2) offered for the truth of the matter asserted, is inadmissible . . . unless, of course, an
exception or exclusion applies . . .