Using and Objecting to Evidence at Trial | Cordell and Cordell

Cordell & Cordell attorney Brad Cunningham presents "The Art of Interruption: Using and Objecting to Evidence at Trial" during the firm's 13th Annual Domestic Litigation forum, a continuing legal education event for fellow attorneys held in April 2013.

[@aaronlowe3156]

This guy is a great presenter! I like his style of presenting. He gives stories and situations and doesn't stick to old school powerpoints with bullet points that nobody really remembers. He keeps the audience engaged and sometimes throws in a little humor.

[@TheCorrectionist1984]

actual talk starts at about 9:00

[@mfcoburn]

Great Lecture. Thanks.

[@colt4667]

At 3:25 It was The Munsters - not The Addams Family.

[@wkdemers]

Tom Cruise, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THETRUTH!" somehow wins that trial ...that was funny lol

[@lanceroark6386]

How about objecting to jurisdiction?

[@frederickhenderson1518]

Thank you

[@hadvin]

Hi,
You reference in the video (around minute 41-42) that in Missouri courts an objection based on relevance has to have detail after the objection. Is that to say that an attorney's "objection - relevance" might not be valid until supporting commentary is provided in court? If so can you point me to relevant case law you mention?

[@aaronreed5502]

Technically, every objection you make you are supposed to support it with detail. "Objection-Relevance: Statement has nothing to do with the issue at hand." Very similar to when someone objects to hearsay, the the questioning attorney makes an offer of proof as to why the statement is not hearsay, and should be let in. I'm sure there is caselaw to support what he says.

[@memphisboyntexas965]

How can I get one of those packets? 😁

[@antiguarocks]

At 40:05 "I used to practice in front of a judge who made objections for you". Is this really OK. Isn't it considered to be "practicing law from the bench" and therefore frowned upon? If not, why not?

[@lukejones1244]

Hello, What would the objection be if the opposing side it trying to submit evidence which is fabricated, even fraudulent?

[@samuelwestall3]

Objection would be that you believe & can prove (have proof) evidence is fabricated

[@TheCorrectionist1984]

you might be able to object for improper foundation, but not necessarily just because it's fake. objecting that the evidence is fake is not really an objection. What you would want to do is use your own evidence to show that it has been fabricated. if you can give more detail I could try to give you a better answer. This is just my commentary, not legal advice, by the way.

[@auntigingy8666]

Right? Like a lying mother who says something like abuse and uses makeup to create fake bruises on the body and then takes a picture and uses it as "evidence" "proof"

[@heatherlynbevard5678]

So if in a DUI case the calibration and accuracy test logs are submitted, and the officer called to authenticate the document testified that he did not create the document he did not sign his signature that was present on the document he did not know how his signature got onto document and he was never trained to do the accuracy or calibration of the machines and he does not know how to do these things. Additionally the Only person whom was responsible for this task was the coordinator, who just testified about some other documents that were created and authenticated in the name of an officer whom he had replaced a year prior, and he testified that it was more convenient to use old preprinted documents that were in someone else's name, then to create new templates inserting his name into the title of the document. ...CR1802626 California v wolvert

[@WavyAF]

Cross Examination

[@levert.gomellewis.8306]

tried to push you into evidence