§ 20.06 Other Common Objections

• Jurisdiction: United States

§ 20.06 Other Common Objections

There are numerous trial objections not specifically referenced in the Rules of Evidence.⁵⁴ Some of the more common are: (1) asking argumentative questions,⁵⁵(2) posing previously asked and answered questions,⁵⁶ (3) assuming facts not in evidence,⁵⁷ (4) asking misleading questions,⁵⁸ (5) asking compound questions,⁵⁹ and (6) giving nonresponsive answers.⁶⁰

--------

Notes:

^[54] See Denbeaux & Risinger, Questioning Questions: Objections to Form in the Interrogation of Witnesses, 33 Ark. L. Rev. 439 (1980).

^[55] See State v. Pilot, 595 N.W.2d 511, 518 (Minn. 1999) (Questions concerning another witnesses credibility "are improper and argumentative because they do nothing to assist the jury in assessing witness credibility in its fact-finding mission.").

^[56] See United States v. Collins, 996 F.2d 950, 952 (8th Cir. 1993).

^[57] See United States v. Pantone, 609 F.2d 675, 681 (3d Cir. 1979) ("Pantone's counsel objected to this question as an inaccurate characterization of the direct testimony. That objection was well taken, since there is no hint in Pantone's prior testimony of a general denial of referrals. The district court nevertheless overruled the objection and permitted the government to elicit a denial of referrals.").

^[58] For example, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

^[59] With compound questions, it is not clear whether the witness is responding to the first or second part of the question. See United States v. Kinnard, 465 F.2d 566, 578 n.7 (3d Cir. 1979) ("The question that led to the ruling was: 'Do you have any experience or any knowledge about the reliability of narcotic addicts, insofar as telling the truth or being reliable or being accurate or even caring who they hurt or don't hurt so long as they are not put in jail?' While this was objectionable in form as a compound question, its thrust is reasonably plain.").

^[60] See United States v. Shillingstad, 632 F.3d 1031, 1036 (8th Cir. 2011) (noting traditional view that only the party conducting the examination can move to strike for unresponsiveness); Elyria-Lorain Broadcasting Co. v. Lorain Journal Co., 298 F.2d 356, 359 (6th Cir. 1961) ("Although it is true that the opponent may not object to a non-responsive answer on that ground alone, he may move to strike such an answer if it is objectionable for any other reason.").