Trial Courts

Judge

The role of the Judge is to preside at trial and to make decisions regarding the case. Judges make decisions regarding all legal arguments and objections. In a bench trial (where no jury is present), a Judge will serve as the decision maker regarding all factual matters, as well as all legal matters. The judge is an elected or appointed youth officer.

Attorney

The attorneys represent the parties in a trial. An attorney is an advocate for a client (defendant or the state) at trial. In order to prepare for this role, an attorney will need to (1) read and understand the facts and rules, (2) develop a theory as to what “actually” happened (hopefully, one that is in line with the interests of the attorney’s client), (3) develop arguments that will benefit the attorney’s client, (4) prepare questions for witnesses and question witnesses, and (6) prepare and present opening statements and closing arguments for trial.

Attorney (teams) are required to:

1. Prepare to argue both sides of their case
2. Present opening statements
3. Conduct direct examination of witnesses
4. Conduct cross-examination of witnesses
5. Make appropriate objections

Attorneys will argue both prosecution and defense (in separate trials) for their case. Prosecution. Prosecution presents the case for the state. The prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defense. Defense attorneys present the case for the defense. Defense attorneys, through their own witnesses, present the defendant’s version of the facts. Defense attorneys poke holes in the prosecution’s story and version of the facts.

Every student (other than Judges) will serve as an attorney.

Clerk

Clerks serve as the administrators for the trial. Clerks swear in witnesses. Clerks inform the judge when the parties are ready. Clerks confirm that parties are ready. Judges will select a clerk before each trial from other judges or from attorneys that are not arguing during that time. In order to be prepared for the clerk’s rule, a student should read and understand the general trial script (with a focus on the Clerk’s roles).

Juror

It is the job of a juror to listen to and follow the judge’s instructions. Jurors hear evidence and testimony, deliberate (discuss a case) and determine the facts in a case. Every student will serve as a juror during the program.

Witnesses

Witnesses provide testimony in the cases, based on the witness statements. Witness Statements are included in your Case Materials. Advisors, law students and college students serve as witnesses. Witnesses try to act as though they are the people described in the witness statements.

Step 1 · LAUNCH training session

As a court member, your work will begin at LAUNCH. You will have the opportunity to spend most of the day with other court delegates as roles within this program area are decided. Your Program Specialists and Officers will assign attorney partners and cases. You will have the opportunity to ask questions about the case/case law.

Attending LAUNCH is vital to your success at Youth in Government. This information will also be posted on the Center for Youth Voice website. You will receive the following:

Case Materials

The Case Materials are what you need to read to understand your particular case. They include a summary of the events, a description of the charges and the Judge’s instructions to the Jury. Most importantly, the Case Materials contain the testimony of the witnesses that you will be examining. You should briefly examine the summary and carefully read the witness testimony. You will prepare your questions for the witnesses and your opening statement and closing arguments based on the information contained in these materials.

Preparation is the key to a fun and productive court experience. We look forward to working with you during the upcoming YIG conference.

Step 2 · Reading your case

Reading case law is a lot like putting together a puzzle. Sometimes you have to be persistent to find which pieces connect together. Sometimes you don’t have all of the pieces, so the puzzle is impossible to solve. It is a rare occasion when you are able to fit together the pieces quickly! What we’re trying to tell you is that patience is a big part of this program area.

1St: Read The Fact Pattern

Every case starts with a fact pattern. This is the chain of events that leads to the two parties going to court. When a case comes to the Trial or District Courts, it is being heard for the first time, so the decisions made here matter! Your job is look at the facts of the case and seek key pieces that will convince the jury that your client is correct, regardless of which side you are arguing on.

2Nd: Read The Charges And Jury Instructions

Consider what the Defendant is being charged with and what threshold must be met for the Defendant to be found guilty. This section explains what the particular charge means and gives some details about what that kind of charge looks like. Remember, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, so the Jury Instructions allow you to see what needs to be proven to reach a guilty verdict. This is the measuring stick that will be used every time you try your case at YIG.

3Rd: Consider The Stipulations

Stipulations law out the final facts before you get to the Witness Statements and Exhibits (physical evidence) and include information that is not delivered though those means. These may consist of clues relating to how searches were conducted, background on certain witnesses, how Exhibits may be displayed, and even what is and isn’t permissible during the Trial. Stipulations contain some of the best hints to help you win a case, so make sure to pay close attention to them.

4Th: Review Witness Statements And Exhibits

Every case contains statements from some witnesses that have been called by the Prosecution and others that have been called by the Defense. Review these thoroughly, as every single thing within them is there to help or hinder your case, regardless of the side your client is on. In fact, during the conference, you will likely be arguing both sides, so make sure you know these inside and out.

Exhibits are physical evidence as it relates to the trial at hand. As is the case with the witness statements, all of these will help or hinder your case and should be studied closely. Check out the “Use of Exhibits” information at the end of this section for more on these.

Step 3 · Preparing your court materials

You’ve read through the case and now you’re ready to do some puzzle solving! When presenting any case, the lawyer is an advocate for their client. As an advocate, the lawyer must prepare and present persuasive arguments to the court that are favorable to their client or their client’s interests.

In Youth in Government, Trial and District Court Delegates do not compile a brief (described below). Instead, they complete the Case Preparation Worksheet to assist them in composing their arguments. In either program area, delegates must prepare arguments for both sides of their assigned, as they will be representing both the Prosecution as well as the Defense at various points throughout the conference.

On the next page is the “Case Preparation Worksheet.” This is a mandatory tool to be used by both Trial and District Court delegates in preparing their materials. You must enter information from this worksheet into Regy.

In the YIG appellate courts, lawyers prepare a brief. In a brief, the lawyer argues for their client in writing. A brief is a formal document a lawyer uses both to convince a court that the client's argument is sound and to persuade a court to adopt that position. A brief must honestly state the law, the facts of the case, and the reasons for the conclusions in a clear and concise manner. The brief writer must attempt to make the client's position seem as strong as possible, emphasizing favorable arguments and minimizing the force of opposing arguments. It is not enough that the client's position appears logical or even desirable—it must seem compelling.

The brief writer knows their basic conclusions in advance. Their work involves a search for arguments and materials to support those conclusions and that show their client's position is stronger and should prevail.

Step 4 · Submit your court materials

You’ve completed the Case Preparation Worksheet! Great job! Your arguments at the conference will be all the stronger for it, now.

After gotten feedback on a on the arguments you compiled in the Case Preparation Worksheet, you should write your final draft and submit it on Regy. You have been assigned a template on Regy. The template will have a variety of text boxes. Though the text boxes do not mirror the Case Preparation Worksheet exactly, the work you did to complete it will help you in completing your Regy assignment. Fill in the content, section-by-section, with information from your Case Preparation Worksheet.

Regy has the capabilities for back-and-forth editing. It is possible for your materials to be reviewed by your Delegation Director and you may be given additional instructions/conditions to fulfill before the materials can be submitted to the State Office for distribution to the courts Officers, Officials, and Program Specialists.

Please be prompt in completing your court materials so you and the entire courts team can be well- prepared for Youth in Government. Plan ahead in case of technical difficulties.

If You Do Not ‘Finalize’ Your Materials And Send It To Your Delegation Director, It

WILL NOT MAKE IT TO THE CONFERENCE.

Please take care that you fully complete the process.

It is strongly encouraged that you bring a printed and digital version of your court materials with you to Youth in Government, just in case something goes wrong. It will help you win your arguments!

Opening Statement

The opening statement outlines the case as you intend to present it. The prosecution delivers the first opening statement. A defense attorney may follow immediately or delay the opening statement until the prosecution has finished presenting its witnesses. A good opening statement should:

• Explain what you plan to prove and how you will prove it.
• Present the events of the case in an orderly sequence that is easy to understand.
• Suggest a motive or emphasize a lack of motive for the crime.

Begin your statement with a formal address to the judge:

• “Your honor, my name is (full name), the prosecutor representing the State of Minnesota in this action;” or
• “Your honor, my name is (full name), counsel for (defendant) in this action.”

Proper phrasing includes:

• “The evidence will indicate that...” “The facts will show...”
• “Witness (full name) will be called to tell...”
• “The defendant will testify that...”

Direct Examination

Attorneys conduct direct examination of their own witnesses to bring out the facts of the case. Direct examination should:

• Call for answers based on information provided in the case materials.
• Reveal all of the facts favorable to your position.
• Ask the witness to tell the story rather than using leading questions (leading questions call for “yes” or “no” answers.)
• Make the witness seem believable.
• Keep the witness from rambling about unimportant matters.

Call for the witness with a formal request:

• “Your honor, I would like to call ____________ (name of witness) to the stand.”

The witness will then be sworn in before testifying.

After the witness swears to tell the truth, you may wish to ask some introductory questions to make the witness feel comfortable. Appropriate inquiries include:

• The witness’s name.
• Length of residence or present employment, if this information helps to establish the witness’s
• credibility.
• Further questions about professional qualifications, if you wish to qualify the witness as an
• expert.

Examples of proper questions on direct examination:

• “Could you please tell the court what occurred on that day?”
• “What happened after the defendant slapped you?”
• “How clear was your view of the defendant?

• “Did anyone do anything while you waited?”
• “How long did you remain in that spot?”

Conclude your direct examination with:

• “Thank you, Mr./Ms. (last name of witness). That will be all, your honor.” (The witness remains on the stand for cross-examination.)

Cross-Examination

Cross-examination follows the opposing attorney’s direct examination of the witness. Attorneys conduct cross-examination to explore weaknesses in the opponent’s case, test the witness’s credibility, and establish some of the facts of the cross-examiner’s case whenever possible. Cross-examination should:

• Call for answers based on information given in Witness Statements or the Fact Situation.
• Use leading questions, which are designed to get “yes” and “no” answers.
• Reduce the changes that the witness will make a statement supporting your opponent.

In an actual trial, cross-examination is restricted to the scope of issues raised on direct examination. Because YIG attorneys are not permitted to call opposing witnesses as their own, the scope of cross- examination in YIG is not limited in this way.

Examples of proper questions on cross-examinations:

• “Isn’t it a fact that...?”
• “Wouldn’t you agree that...?”
• “Don’t you think that...?”
• “When you spoke with your neighbor on the night of the murder, weren’t you wearing a red shirt?”

Cross-examination should conclude with:

• “I have no more questions for this witness, your honor.”

Impeachment A Witness’ Credibility (Believability)

During cross-examination, the attorney may want to show the court that the witness should not be believed. This is called impeaching the witness’ credibility (believability). Sometimes it is referred to as “impeaching a witness.”

Impeaching a witness’ credibility is done by asking questions about the witness’ relationships, the witness’ prior conduct or prior statements. The goal is to call into question whether or not someone should believe the witness’ other testimony.

A witness also may be impeached by introducing the witness’s statement and asking the witness whether he or she has contradicted something in the statement (i.e., identifying the specific contradiction between the witness’s statement and oral testimony).

Example: (relationship)

• “You’re the victim’s mother, right?”

Example: (prior statements)

• “The night in question, you told the police officer that you didn’t see anything, were not wearing your glasses and that you had only arrived on the scene after the murder took place occurred?”

Example: (Prior conduct)

• “Is it true that you hit your nephew when he was 6-years-old and broke his arm?”

Example: (Past conviction)

• “Is it true that you’ve been convicted of assault?”

(NOTE: These last two types of questions may only be asked when the questioning attorney has information that indicates that the conduct actually happened – otherwise, you’re badgering the witness.) Examples: (Using signed witness statement to impeach)

• “Mr. Jones, do you recognize the statement I have had the clerk mark Defense Exhibit A?”
• “Would you read the third paragraph aloud to the court?”
• “Does this not directly contradict what you said on direct examination?”

IMPORTANT: Once you’ve asked the questions that call into doubt the witness’ credibility, you do not declare that the witness is impeached. You have to argue to the jury, as part of your closing argument, that the witness should not be believed.

Re-Direct Examination

Following cross-examination, the counsel who called the witness may conduct re-direct examination. Attorneys conduct re-direct examination to clarify new (unexpected) issues or facts brought out in the immediately preceding cross-examination only. They may not bring up any issue brought out during direct examination. Attorneys may or may not want to conduct re-direct examination. If an attorney asks questions beyond the issues raised on cross, they may be objected to as “outside the scope of cross-examination.” It is sometimes more beneficial not to conduct re-direct for a particular witness. To properly decide whether it is necessary to conduct re-direct examination, the attorneys must pay close attention to what is said during the cross-examination of their witnesses. If the credibility or reputation for truthfulness of a witness has been attacked on cross-examination, the attorney whose witness has been damaged may wish to “save” the witness through re-direct. These questions should be limited to the damage the attorney thinks has been done and should enhance the witness’s truth-telling image in the eyes of the court.

Closing Arguments

A good closing argument summarizes the case in the light most favorable to your position. The prosecution delivers the first closing argument. The closing argument of the defense attorney concludes the presentations. A good closing argument should:

Be spontaneous, synthesizing what actually happened in court rather than being “pre-packaged.”

• Be emotionally charged and strongly appealing (unlike the calm opening statement).
• Emphasize the facts that support the claims of your side, but not raise any new facts.
• Summarize the favorable testimony.
• Attempt to reconcile inconsistencies that might hurt your side.
• Be well-organized.
• Starting and ending with your strongest point helps to structure the presentation and gives you a good introduction and conclusion.

Proper phrasing includes:

• “The evidence has clearly shown that. . . ”
• “Based on this testimony, there can be no doubt that. . . ”
• “The prosecution has failed to prove that. . . ”
• “The defense would have you believe that. . . ”

Conclude the closing argument with an appeal to convict or acquit the defendant.

Trial script

Sample objection script

Below is an example script for the process of making an objection. Once a party has made an objection

(and stated the nature or reason for the objection), the judge may rule on the objection or may ask either

party for additional information or for explanations as to why the judge should sustain (agree with) or

overrule (disagree with) the objection. The following is just one example.

Order of the pre-trial motion

1. Court is called to order

2. Defense (moving party) presents Pretrial Motion arguments

3. Prosecution (opposing party) presents Pretrial Motion arguments

4. Rebuttal arguments (both)

5. Judge rules on motion and thus determines which charges will be in contention during the trial

District court pre-trial motion script

Note: This section does not apply to Trial Court participants – only to District Court participants.

Allowable Evidentiary Objections

1. Relevance Relevant evidence makes a fact that is important to the case more or less probable than the fact would be without the evidence. To be admissible, any offer of evidence must be relevant to an issue in the trial. The court may exclude relevant evidence if it is unfairly prejudicial, confuses the issues, or is a waste of time. Either direct or circumstantial evidence may be admitted in court. Direct evidence proves the fact asserted without requiring an inference. A piece of circumstantial (indirect) evidence is a fact (Fact 1) that, if shown to exist, suggests (implies) the existence of an additional fact (Fact 2), (i.e., if Fact 1, then probably Fact 2). The same evidence may be both direct and circumstantial depending on its use. Example: Eyewitness testimony that the defendant shot the victim is direct evidence of the defendant’s assault. Testimony establishing that the defendant had a motive to shoot the victim, or that the defendant was seen leaving the victim’s apartment with a smoking gun, is circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s assault. Objection: “Objection, your honor. This testimony is not relevant to the facts of this case. I move that it be stricken from the record.” or “Objection, your honor. Counsel’s question calls for irrelevant testimony.”
2. Laying a Proper Foundation To establish the relevance of circumstantial evidence, you may need to lay a foundation. Laying a proper foundation means that, before a witness can testify to certain facts, it must be shown that the witness was in a position to know about those facts. Sometimes when laying a foundation, the opposing attorney may object to your offer of proof on the ground of relevance, and the judge may ask you to explain how the offered proof relates to the case. Example: If attorney asks a witness if he saw X leave the scene of a murder, opposing counsel may object for a lack of foundation. The questioning attorney should ask the witness first if he was at or near the scene at the approximate time the murder occurred. This lays the foundation that the witness is legally competent to testify to the underlying fact. Objection: “Objection, your honor. There is a lack of foundation.”
3. Lack of Personal Knowledge A witness may not testify about any matter of which the witness has no personal knowledge. Only if the witness has directly observed an event may the witness testify about it. Witnesses will sometimes make inferences from what they actually did observe. An attorney may properly object to this type of testimony because the witness has no personal knowledge of the inferred fact. Example: From around a corner, the witness heard a commotion. Upon investigating, the witness found the victim at the foot of the stairs, and saw the defendant on the landing, smirking. The witness cannot testify over the defense attorney’s objection that the defendant had pushed the victim down the stairs, even though this inference seems obvious. Objection: “Objection, your honor. The witness has no personal knowledge to answer that question.” or “Your honor, I move that the witness’s testimony about...be stricken from the case because the witness has been shown not to have personal knowledge of the matter.” (This motion would follow cross-examination of the witness that revealed the lack of a basis for a previous statement.)
4. Character Evidence Witnesses generally cannot testify about a person’s character unless character is an issue. Such evidence tends to add nothing to the crucial issues of the case. (The honesty of a witness, however, is one aspect of character always at issue.) In criminal trials, the defense may introduce evidence of the defendant’s good character and, if relevant, show the bad character of a person important to the prosecution’s case. Once the defense introduces evidence of character, the prosecution can try to prove the opposite. These exceptions are allowed in criminal trials as an extra protection against erroneous guilty verdicts. Example:

A. The defendant’s minister testifies that the defendant attends church every week and has

a reputation in the community as a law-abiding person. This would be admissible.

B. The prosecutor calls the owner of the defendant’s apartment to testify. She testifies

that the defendant often stumbled in drunk at all hours of the night and threw wild parties. This would probably not be admissible unless the defendant had already introduced evidence of good character. Even then, the evidence and the prejudicial nature of the testimony might outweigh its probative value making it inadmissible. Objection: “Objection, your honor. Character is not an issue here,” or “Objection, your honor. The question calls for inadmissible character evidence.”

5. Opinion (other than an expert) Opinion includes inferences and other subjective statements of a witness. In general, lay witness opinion testimony is inadmissible. It is admissible where it is (a) rationally based upon the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the testimony. Opinions based on a common experience are admissible. Some common examples of admissible lay witness opinions are speed of a moving object, source of an odor, appearance of a person, state of emotion, or identity of a voice or handwriting. Example: A witness could testify that, “I saw the defendant who was elderly, looked tired, and smelled of alcohol.” All of this statement is proper lay witness opinion testimony as long as there is personal knowledge and a proper foundation. Objection: “Objection, your honor. The question calls for inadmissible opinion testimony on the part of the witness. I move that the testimony be stricken from the record.”
6. Expert Witness and Opinion Testimony An expert witness may give an opinion based on professional experience. A person may be qualified as an expert if he or she has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Experts must be qualified before testifying to a professional opinion. Qualified experts may give an opinion based upon personal observations as well as facts made known to them outside the courtroom. The facts need not be admissible evidence if it is the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field. Experts may give opinions on ultimate issues in controversy at trial. In a criminal case, an expert may not state an opinion as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state in issue. Example: A doctor bases her opinion upon (1) an examination of the patient and (2) medically relevant statements of patient’s relatives. Personal examination is admissible because it is relevant and based on personal knowledge. The statements of the relatives are inadmissible hearsay but are proper basis for opinion testimony because they are reasonably relevant to a doctor’s diagnosis. Objection: “Objection, your honor. There is a lack of foundation for opinion testimony,” or “Objection, your honor. The witness is improperly testifying to defendant’s mental state in issue.”
7. Hearsay Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is considered untrustworthy because the speaker of the out-of-court statement is not present and under oath and therefore cannot be cross-examined. Because these statements are unreliable, they ordinarily are not admissible. Testimony not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is, by definition, not hearsay. For example, testimony to show that a statement was said and heard, to show that a declarant could speak in a certain language, or to show the subsequent actions of a listener is admissible. Example:

A. Joe is being tried for murdering Henry. The witness testifies, “Ellen told me that Joe

killed Henry.” If offered to prove that Joe killed Henry, this statement is hearsay and probably would not be admitted over an objection.

B. However, if the witness testifies, “I went looking for Eric because Sally told me that Eric

did not come home last night,” this could be admissible. This is an out-of-court statement, but is not offered to prove the truth of its contents (that Eric did not come home). Instead, it is being introduced to show why the witness looked for Eric. Objection: “Objection, your honor. Counsel’s question calls for hearsay.” or “Objection, your honor. This testimony is hearsay. I move that it be stricken from the record.” Out of practical necessity, courts have recognized certain general categories of hearsay that may be admissible. Exceptions have been made for certain types of out-of-court statements based on circumstances that promote greater reliability. The exceptions listed below and any other proper responses to hearsay objections may be used in the trial.

• Admission against interest by a party opponent—a statement made by a party to the legal action of the existence of a fact that helps the cause of the other side. (An admission is not limited to words, but may also include the demeanor, conduct, and acts of a person charged with a crime.)
• Excited utterance—a statement made shortly after a startling event, while the declarant is still excited or under the stress of excitement.
• State of mind—a statement that shows the declarant’s mental, emotional, or physical condition.
• Declaration against interest—a statement that puts declarant at risk of civil or criminal liability.
• Records made in the regular course of business
• Official records and writings by public employees
• Past recollection recorded—something written by a witness when events were fresh in that witness’s memory, used by the witness with insufficient recollection of the event and read to the trier of fact. (The written material is not admitted as evidence.)
• Statements for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment
• Reputation of a person’s character in the community
• Dying declaration—a statement made by a dying person respecting the cause and circumstances of his or her death, which was made upon that person’s personal knowledge and under a sense of immediately impending death.

• Co-conspirator’s statements—(a) The statement was made by the declarant while participating in a conspiracy to commit a crime or civil wrong and in furtherance of the objective of that conspiracy; (b) the statement was made prior to or during the time that the party was participating in that conspiracy; and (c) the evidence is offered either after admission of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of the facts specified in (a) and (b) or, in the court’s discretion as to the order of proof, subject to the admission of this evidence.

Allowable Objections For Inappropriately Phrased Questions

1. Leading Questions Attorneys may not ask witnesses leading questions during direct examination. A leading question is one that suggests the answer desired. Leading questions are permitted on cross-examination. Example: Counsel for the prosecution asks the witness, “During the conversation, didn’t the defendant declare that he would not deliver the merchandise?” Counsel could rephrase the question, “What, if anything, did the defendant say during this conversation about delivering the merchandise?” Objection: “Objection, your honor. Counsel is leading the witness.”
2. Compound Question A compound question joins two alternatives with “and” or “or,” preventing the interrogation of a witness from being as rapid, distinct, or effective for finding the truth as is reasonably possible. Example: “Did you determine the point of impact from conversations with witnesses and from physical marks, such as debris in the road?” Objection: “Objection, your honor, on the ground that this is a compound question.” The best response if the objection is sustained on these grounds would be, “Your honor, I will rephrase the question,” and then break down the question accordingly. Remember that there may be another way to make your point.
3. Question Calls for Narrative Answer A narrative question is too general and calls for the witness in essence to “tell a story” or make a broad-based and unspecific response. The objection is based on the belief that the question seriously inhibits the successful operation of a trial and the ultimate search for the truth. Example: The attorney asks A, “Please tell us all of the conversations you had with X before X started the job.” The question is objectionable, and the objections should be sustained. Objection: “Objection, your honor. Counsel’s question calls for a narrative.”

Other Objections

1. Argumentative Question An argumentative question challenges the witness about an inference from the facts in the case. A cross-examiner may, however, legitimately attempt to force the witness to concede the historical fact of a prior inconsistent statement. Example: Questions such as “How can you expect the judge to believe that?” are argumentative and objectionable. The attorney may argue the inferences during summation or closing argument, but the attorney must ordinarily restrict his or her questions to those calculated to elicit facts. Objection: “Objection, your honor. Counsel is being argumentative.” or “Objection, your honor. Counsel is badgering the witness.”
2. Asked and Answered Witnesses should not be asked a question that has previously been asked and answered. This can seriously inhibit the effectiveness of a trial. Example:

A. On Direct Examination—Counsel A asks B, “Did X stop for the stop sign?” B answers,

“No, he did not.” A then asks, “Let me get your testimony straight. Did X stop for the stop sign?”

Counsel for X correctly objects and should be sustained.

BUT:

B. On Cross-Examination—Counsel for X asks B, “Didn’t you tell a police officer after the

accident that you weren’t sure whether X failed to stop for the stop sign?” B answers, “I don’t remember.” Counsel for X then asks, “Do you deny telling him that?” Counsel A makes an asked and answered objection. The objection should be overruled. Why? It is sound policy to permit cross-examining attorneys to ask the same question more than once in order to conduct a searching probe of the direct examination testimony.

Objection: “Objection, your honor. This question has been asked and answered.”

3. Vague and Ambiguous Questions Questions should be clear, understandable, and as concise as possible. The objection is based on the notion that witnesses cannot answer questions properly if they do not understand the questions. Example: “Does it all happen at once?” Objection: “Objection, your honor. This question is vague and ambiguous as to what ‘it’ refers to.”
4. Non-Responsive Witness

Sometimes a witness’s reply is too vague and doesn’t give the details the attorney is asking for, or the witness “forgets” the event in question. This is often purposefully used by the witness as a tactic to prevent some particular evidence from being brought forth.

Objection: “Objection, your honor. The witness is being non-responsive.”

5. Outside the Scope of Cross-Examination Re-direct examination is limited to issues raised by the opposing attorney on cross-examination. If an attorney asks questions beyond the issues raised on cross, opposing counsel may object to them. Objection: “Objection, your honor. Counsel is asking the witness about matters that did not come up in cross-examination.”