Objection (United States law)

Lore & Background

During trials and depositions, an objection is typically raised after the opposing party asks a question of the witness, but before the witness can answer, or when the opposing party is about to enter something into evidence. At trial, the judge then makes a ruling on whether the objection is sustained or overruled. An attorney may choose to rephrase a question that has been objected to, so long as the judge permits it. Lawyers should make an objection before there is an answer to the question. Research finds that frequent objections by attorneys do not alienate jurors. Historically, at trial, an attorney had to promptly take an exception immediately after an objection was overruled to preserve it for appeal, or else the objection was permanently waived. In addition, at the end of the trial, the attorney had to submit a written bill of exceptions that listed all exceptions they intended to appeal on—which the judge then signed and sealed. The bill of exceptions was a relic of early English practice. After modern American courts began to use court reporters to create accurate transcripts, lawyers and judges recognized that exceptions were unnecessary. Starting in the 1930s, exceptions were abolished in the federal courts and in many state courts. In nearly all U.S. courts, it is now sufficient that the objection was clearly made on the record. A continuing objection is an objection an attorney makes to a series of questions about a related point. It may be made, in the discretion of the court, to preserve an issue for appeal without distracting the factfinder with an objection to every question. A continuing objection is made where the objection itself is overruled, but the trial judge permits a silent continuing objection to that point. An example is when a lawyer could be held negligent for not objecting to a particular line of questioning, yet has had previous objections overruled.

Reader's Guide

The objection is a fundamental tool in U.S. trial procedure, allowing attorneys to challenge improper evidence, argument, or questions. Its significance lies in preserving the integrity of the trial by enforcing rules of evidence and procedural law. The judge's ruling—sustained or overruled—determines whether the challenged matter is admitted. Objections also serve to preserve issues for appeal; historically, this required a formal exception and a bill of exceptions, but modern practice, following reforms starting in the 1930s, generally requires only that the objection be clearly made on the record. The continuing objection streamlines proceedings by allowing a single objection to cover a series of related questions. The article lists numerous specific grounds for objection, such as ambiguity, hearsay, leading questions, and privilege, each addressing a particular violation of evidentiary rules. Objections are not limited to trials but also arise in depositions and pretrial hearings, where they can preserve issues for later motions or appeals. Overall, the objection balances the need for fair proceedings with the efficient administration of justice.

Did You Know?

• An objection is typically raised after the opposing party asks a question but before the witness can answer.
• Historically, an attorney had to take an exception immediately after an objection was overruled to preserve it for appeal.
• Starting in the 1930s, exceptions were abolished in federal courts and many state courts.
• A continuing objection may be made to preserve an issue for appeal without objecting to every question.