Ads
related to: objections to a witness form
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A few of the foregoing objections may also apply to the witness's response, particularly hearsay, privilege, and relevance. An objection to form—to the wording of a question rather than its subject matter—is not itself a distinct objection reason, but a category that includes ambiguity, leading, compounding and others.
An offer of proof is a kind of motion that a lawyer may present to a judge or to the official presiding over a hearing. It is an explanation made by an attorney to a judge during trial to show why a question which has been objected to as immaterial or irrelevant will lead to evidence of value to proving the case of the lawyer's client.
the witness is subject to cross-examination about the prior statement. [4] There is no requirement that the prior consistent statement have been made under oath at a prior trial or hearing. A form of prior consistent statement excepted from this rule is that of prior identification by the witness of another person in a lineup. [citation needed]
While most of the same objections to form are applicable as in the United States, the witness's lawyer may additionally take certain questions "under advisement" as a means of delaying answering the question, without making a formal objection. [6] The process is considered in Canada to be time-consuming and expensive when conducted without limits.
Even neutral questions can lead witnesses to answers based on word choice, response framing, assumptions made, and form. The words "fast", "collision" and "How", for example, can alter speed estimates provided by respondents. [6] When someone asks a leading question, they expect the other person to agree with the leading question.
Attorneys must lay a foundation for witness testimony at trial. [26] The process differs when the witness is a lay witness or an expert witness. [26] However, as a baseline matter for both expert and lay witnesses, the testimony must be established to be helpful in assisting the trier of fact understand a fact at issue in the case. [27] [28]
Opposing counsel could raise an argumentative objection. In this context, "negligently" is a legal term of art with a precise and narrow meaning, and the witness cannot reasonably answer the question without understanding the relevant law. Since the lawyer is "arguing" his case that John Doe was driving negligently through the witness, the ...
See e.g. the Irish Superior Courts rules, which seem to contemplate that objections to questions at an examination would be raised by a witness and then ruled on by a judge, which would thus seem to be a pretty distinct procedural concept. English objection practice seems to be likewise divergent. As a second line of evidence, altlangs can be a ...