I plan on offering FREE access to Trial Ad Academy for those that go above and beyond with the objections and participation! Just be sure that you are part of the Law Venture community so I can potentially shoot you an email with the 100% off coupon code. The easiest way to join the community is downloading the free Objection Cheat Sheet (link in the description).
Objections from the direct. I'm in high school and thus I am not an attorney or a law student, but feel free to call me out on any ridiculous objections. 13:10 leading as to "30 years. Probably not worth objection though 14:30 hearsay as to "there had been fatalities." This might not be worth objecting to if it's uncontested, but it seems like hearsay. It likely goes to subsequent actions, but a limiting instruction could be requested since there's no foundation for excited utterance of anything (which I feel like is usually the exception for calls like this). 15:05. Lack of foundation as to "obviously there was a death" if "there had been fatalities" only went to subsequent actions. Although it's probably uncontested so maybe not 15:56 lack of foundation as to the car going over the median. There has been no foundation as to this, and the witness should keep their testimony to what they observed, or describe how they learned it. 17:05 foundation as to what killed Pearson. There has only been foundation laid that they conducted an investigation, and found some materials, but nothing about the cause of death, or anything about the detective knowing what occurred. 17:25 This is still all lack of foundation. This isn't an expert opinion since there's been no 702 foundation, and we have no idea how the detective knows any of this 18:00 same objection as above. How does she know any of this? It's likely from hearsay. 18:40 "was being airlifted to the hospital." It's foundation again. Did she see him get airlifted? That foundation needs to be laid. 19:20 Hearsay? The witness would have told her that they saw what occurred, which seems like hearsay 19:28 more hearsay 21 minuteish, more foundation issues 25:15 "which resulted in his death." Speculation? Improper expert opinion? she can't testify as to this. Also feels like more foundational issues about who is Spector's car here in this whole pocket. 26:47, how the car veered calls for speculation. She isn't an expert on cars and can't testify there hasn't been 702 foundation. 28:40 Improper expert opinion as to the inference. This objection might not win, but it feels worth making. There hasn't been any foundation that she's an expert on BAC levels. 29:48, another objection that might not be worth making, but speculation about the napkin. The napkin doesn't imply that he was at the bar where it came from. 30:14 Hearsay as to the bartender's comments 31:05 I feel like this needs to be objected to in some form, not entirely sure what. Speculation as to his focus? 403? Relevance as to what she finds odd about demeanor? Or even character evidence, I could argue that it's being used to show a propensity for disregard of human life. 31:18 Hearsay as to takes good care of it 31:44 Hearsay as to the mechanic 32:48 Improper expert opinion as to car parts 33:20 more improper opinion 35:12 If my prior foundation objections were sustained they would be renewed here about the drunkness and cause of death 36:04. Character evidence and speculation. It's being used to show a propensity for recklessness, and she's speculating about how the marital issues caused the drinking and the crash 36:13 More prejudicial than probative. The jury has no business hearing about criminal charges. Although I'm not sure if this is true 36:56 only objection if I had won prior objections 37:10 speculation as to could have avoided the pothole 37:15 calls for speculation 37:32 more speculation Thanks for the video, it was fun practice.
I'm new to this so this might sounds dumb 13:54 Nonresponsive-Question did not ask for whether or not she was getting paid, relevance? 15:35 Compound? Leading? 16:45 Foundation-Did not testify on her methods that would have recreated the wreck therefore the witness would not know improper expert testimony-Witness's job is to gather and document information and is not qualified as a detective to speculate how this occurred, only what was on the scene 19:28 Hearsay- Used to prove that it was the defendant that was driving that fast big gap here cuz I was eating 28:34 Improper Expert testimony- Has not testified as to how she would know the rate at which blood alcohol levels would change in the human body. Vareity of factors that could effect that such as whether or not the witnes went to the bathroom, or drank more water that would have lowered, all remain purely speculative 29:25 Foundation-Has not testified as to how it was from a nearby bar, did not testify if there were any distinct features on the napkin that would have pointed it to the specific bar, has not testified as to how she would recognize napkins (such as if she was a patron) and therefore we can't be sure whether or not the defendant brought it from home, bar, or just picked it off the street. 30:14 Hearsay-Cannot use this as proof to say that defendant showed up at that time directly, also no foundation has been laid as how the onlooker identified the defendant 30:59 Speculation- Witness doesn't;t know what the defendant prioritized, it would require her to be a mind reader. 31:Speculation-In the conversation, defendant never told her any procedures done to the car 35:58 Improper Character Evidence 37:10-Assumes fact not in evidence-Even she said there is no concrete proof that the defendant was drunk, now she just states it. Then uses it to assume his driving capabilities at the time in an incident with the pothole which the witness has failed to outline any possible alternatives aside from alcohol. A bird could have hit his windshield distracting, we don't know enough about the scene of the crime (specifically outward distractions present at the time) to say that a sober defendant would have avoided the pothole 37:29-Speculation-Doesn't know how good the defendant is at driving to confidently state that if he was sober a pothole wouldn't;t have thrown him off, the charge is vehicular manslaughter where the opposing counsel must prove negligence, but because we don't know and therefore can't say however sober person would perfectly react to something as dangerous as a pothole, they can't place fault
I believe asking for a like does work. You've given the viewer an action. I think it's nature for people to want to do what's asked, especially if they like the person doing the asking. You're somewhat likeable. 😂 When making websites, I find verb work better than non-actions. For instance "Register Now" vs "Registration Form". I'm representing myself in an upcoming hearing. Your videos are phenomenal. I'm so glad I've started watching them. I subscribed to your channel and have been making sure to like all the videos I've watched.
13:11 - Asked and answered 14:45 - narrative?? 17:25 - asked and answered 17:54 - relevance 19:02 - Speculation 19:25 - hearsay 19:55 - speculation 25:47 - speculation 27:23 - speculation 30:08 - Hearsay 31:02 - speculation 34:52 - asked and answered 35:18 - hearsay 35:53 - character evidence Really not sure about many of these, but this is what I've got...any feedback would be much appreciated.
13:11 - i don't agree with asked and answered as the counsel is not forcing a specific answer out of the witness, just clarifying details 13:40- around here I said speculation because the witness is guessing and relying on estimations to lay the foundation of her experience 14:45- I agree with the objection to the narrative as the witness moved away from just answering the questions to fluff the collection of the scene 17:50- I agree with relevance; the car Mr. Spector drove has no relevance to furthering the case at hand 18:50- cause for speculation...the question asks leads to speculation by the witness 19:02- I agree with speculation- the witness is speculating as to the state of Mr Specter 19:22- hearsay, not direct witness account 25:47- I do not agree with speculation, she is just defining her own graph for the jury 27:23- I don't agree that this is speculation as she did in fact go to the hospital for the blood draw but I am not sure because she may be speculating on the state of Mr spector after the crash again 28:30- inadmissible opinion of lay; guessing the numbers as to the level of alcohol in his blood at the time of the crash/she is not an expert on toxicology 30:08- I agree with hearsay 31:03- instead of speculation, I think it is an objection to character evidence 31:42- I don't know if it is asked or answered or objection to narrative 33:35- asked and answered; judicial economy 37:48- speculation 35:59- character evidence
Thank you so much from an aspiring lawyer! I’ve only dipped my toe into the waters a little bit given how young I am, but I’m always looking for more exposure
19:26 - hearsay that he was driving fast 27:24 and 29:23 Objections for relevance and unfair prejudice of the smell of alcohol on his breath 29:54 - anything she mentioned about what Donna Paulson said is hearsay and extrinsic evidence 31:40 - Hearsay
I actually don't think that she said she could smell alcohol on his breath. I'd most likely hold off on that objection and use cross to start building the proof that the alcohol smell came from the broken beer bottle.
First she says the tie rod looked like it was cut- (pretty hard to do since it is a thick piece of metal) then she says it broke because of the pothole. I think I would use that for impeachment purposes.
Objections: I am a 1L and taking a summer mock trial class and trying to grasp the concepts. This video is a great demonstration. I may have identified some of these wrong but wanted to participate. Is it possible for you to post all the correct objections that one could have made thanks? 13:10 counsel testifying about 30 yrs? 15:16 Leading maybe just you on the scene? 15:42 Compound 19:32 Hearsay about what witness said driving fast 21.4 Ask and answered? 27.26 Compound 28.57 assuming facts not in evidence 30.11 Hearsay about person from Bar 34.18 Compound 36.08 character evidence/relevance
Since I have all of the objections analyzed in Trial Ad Academy, I can't necessarily share all of the answers here since that wouldn't be fair for those enrolled in the course. But, I'll provide some feedback to what you've posted: 13:10 - You should ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish with each objection. For this one, I can't see a particular goal and the risk you'd run is looking like you're trying to hide something from the jury. Since this statement is being made casually and doesn't hurt your case, I'd avoid the risk. 15:16 - This objection doesn't necessarily serve a purpose either. 15:42 - Definitely compound! Haha. But, you are typically going to make the compound objection during cross so that it is clear which questions your witness is answering. In other words, if a compound question is asked to your witness on cross, you want to object to make sure everyone is on the same page with what is being asked and answered. With a direct examination like this, if the question is confusing (like it is here haha), then that is usually going to benefit your side. I probably wouldn't object here. Hope this helps! PS... you nailed some of these objections!
Great video guys! Keep up the good work! The errors below occur more than once (as you know) ... but I won't be the annoying lawyer that objects to everything! Objection 15.37 - double ended question! (“Was the road shut down or were cars driving?") Objection 17.04 - speculative (reference to what killed the victim.) objection 17.25 - repetitive / inviting a narrative (asking for a re-cap.) Objection 19.26 - hearsay (The detective says what the other witnesses told her. Eg. the car was travelling at ‘an excessive speed’.) Btw - just subscribed!
This was a lot of fun. I'm just a regular shmegular guy and even I got some of these objections right! 15:15: Speculation or creating a narrative that there was a Patrol Officer that was 1st on the scene. 15:41: Compound question “was the road shut down, were cars still driving” 16:52: Speculation - she does not know how the accident happened because she wasn’t there to witness it 16:56: Speculation - Is it not necessary to first identify whose car is whose or does the Court allow you to assume? 17:01: Speculation - We’re going to assume that the impact killed Mr. Pearson? 17:50: Asked an answer - “You’re talking about Mr. Spector’s car…” rather than "Whose car are you referring to?" or similar. 19:21: Hearsay - she doesn’t know if the witness had seen Mr. Spector’s car. 19:25: HEARSAY!!! Would love some feedback. I understand that there needs to be purpose behind each objection but what if we allow these items and then hurts us later? For example, 15:15 could be significant if that Patrol Officer is going to be called as a witness. Couldn't the Jury give more weight to that officer's testimony then since he was there earlier according to Zayne?
For the 17:01 objection, I wouldn't say it's speculation because as an expert witness, I believe she's qualified and has enough experience to make the claim that the impact killed Pearson. Given she's worked for years as a police officer who dealed particularly with car accidents, she has plenty of experience understanding the physics of car accidents. Also, as a detective, it's her job to make logical inferences and find patterns among previous car accidents. She does say objectively that it killed him, so I guess you could object to that and make the point that she can only have an opinion unless she can prove her statement with evidence.
Objection calls for medical diagnosis. She doesn't know that the accident caused his death-she is not a physician or medical examiner. He could have died first which caused the accidentl
It's a motor vehicle accident case, witness is not bringing out the technical terms such as offside, nearside of Mr. So and so lane. The rear of the car, point of impact, resultant position etc.😊
7:53 Objection, ABA Ethics Rule 7.3 Counselor may not represent client as he is expected to be called as a material witness. Judge: Sustained 7:53 Objection, Counselor is biased as he has and is expected to be living in the DOG HOUSE for the rest of his life. Judge: Sustained, Counselor it's in your interest not call your wife as a witness. 12:47 Objection leading question. Counselor: It's for foundation and to limit wasting this courts time. Judge: Sustained, it's for me to decide if something is wasting this courts time.
Would an objection to her inference of the blood alcohol being at the legal limit 2 hours earlier be acceptable. I think I would throw it out there anyway because again it calls for medical diagnosis. She does not know his medical conditions or how fast or slow he metabolizes and she doesn't have the medical background to know that.
13:08 leading "Almost 30 years of experience, more or less?" 15:42 compound question "was the road shut down or were there cars still driving?" 15: 51 speculation or lack foundation since no "eye witnesses statement have been laid" "She is speculating as to what happened with no first hand knowledge." 16:30-17:00 speculation as to cause of death and what happen without any foundation. 17:20 speculation, as to the direction cars were traveling. 17:38 speculation, as it appears to. all opinion with no facts to back it up. 18:00 speculation / foundation, she arrived on scene after the accident, how does she know Mr specter was driving? 18:52: compound question 19:30-42: hearsay and speculation on how fast he was driving. 19: 40- 20:00: speculation. 20: 35 Speculation, no proof Mr. Specter identifies as an individual. 21:06 speculation as to which lane he was in. Lack of personal knowledge and opinion. 21: 17 speculation and opinion as to which lane again 21:23: compound question. 21:44 speculation or opinion as to who the hub cap belongs to. 22:03 Leading question into a direct question. stopped watching cause i am outta time. Good night.
37:14 objection. Speculation. Anybody driving within speed limit could potentially lose control of the vehicle if it hits the pot hole, especially that a tire rod was found to be broken. She also testified that the tire rod may have broke from normal wear and tear. That is not proof that Mr. Specter was driving under the influence.
16:13 objection " speculation' the witness cannot say what was the cause of death 19;13 objection 'speculation' alcohol smell 19;16 objection 'hearsay' out of court evidence by another 19:56 objection 'speculation' witness cannot say why the car was being driven at a fast rate
There are a number of ways. The easiest may be going to the description of this video and clicking the link for the Objection Cheat Sheet. Another route is going to lawventure.com and signing up on the homepage. Hope this helps!
17:53 relevance? How is the type of car or even the color of the car in any way relevant in today's case? 19:26 hearsay. This is an out of court statement being offered for the truth of the matter asserted therefore it is inadmissible. 30:11 hearsay. Out of court statements being offered for the truth of the matter asserted therefore it's inadmissible. 31:03 speculation. The witness is testifying to the mindset of the defendant, and cannot testify as to the mindset. 31:42 hearsay. Out of court statements being offered for the truth of the matter asserted therefore it's inadmissible. 35:59 improper character evidence.
Hi...Just a comment..can you introduce yourself in the beginning of your videos..would like to know more about you and your profession ..in the private sector or DA, etc
I have a list of objections but overall would you move to strike her testimony because she was not admitted as an expert witness? You did ask her background but did not identify her as an expert.
@@LawVenture Thanks. I am practicing my courtroom skills because I am one of the first licensed Legal Paraprofessionals in AZ. I now have a license to practice family law which amazing. Before this new license was in effect, I was an advanced certified paralegal and have significant experience reviewing documents to make objections in advance of a hearing but not much experience as it relates to objections on the fly. So I love this. Thank you! And yes not the whole testimony.
OJECTION YOUR HONOR detective was not at the scene and therefore she cannot testify as to what happened because she had no personal first hand knowledege SPECULATING
How is this helpful if we must look to the comment section and check ourselves against other aspiring attorneys, I don't want to absorb something that is wrong, where is the video where you break down the direct and say "ok so at this time stamp you should have thought about this objection", there is no feedback
Looks like you skipped the part at 7:09, which answers your last question. The RUclips version is meant to be an exercise of your current knowledge. If you’re not comfortable in that knowledge (which is ok), I recommend diving into the objection videos so you can come back and apply what you’ve learned. I also think some of the comments on this video provide great input. Best of luck on your journey!
I plan on offering FREE access to Trial Ad Academy for those that go above and beyond with the objections and participation! Just be sure that you are part of the Law Venture community so I can potentially shoot you an email with the 100% off coupon code. The easiest way to join the community is downloading the free Objection Cheat Sheet (link in the description).
Objections from the direct. I'm in high school and thus I am not an attorney or a law student, but feel free to call me out on any ridiculous objections.
13:10 leading as to "30 years. Probably not worth objection though
14:30 hearsay as to "there had been fatalities." This might not be worth objecting to if it's uncontested, but it seems like hearsay. It likely goes to subsequent actions, but a limiting instruction could be requested since there's no foundation for excited utterance of anything (which I feel like is usually the exception for calls like this).
15:05. Lack of foundation as to "obviously there was a death" if "there had been fatalities" only went to subsequent actions. Although it's probably uncontested so maybe not
15:56 lack of foundation as to the car going over the median. There has been no foundation as to this, and the witness should keep their testimony to what they observed, or describe how they learned it.
17:05 foundation as to what killed Pearson. There has only been foundation laid that they conducted an investigation, and found some materials, but nothing about the cause of death, or anything about the detective knowing what occurred.
17:25 This is still all lack of foundation. This isn't an expert opinion since there's been no 702 foundation, and we have no idea how the detective knows any of this
18:00 same objection as above. How does she know any of this? It's likely from hearsay.
18:40 "was being airlifted to the hospital." It's foundation again. Did she see him get airlifted? That foundation needs to be laid.
19:20 Hearsay? The witness would have told her that they saw what occurred, which seems like hearsay
19:28 more hearsay
21 minuteish, more foundation issues
25:15 "which resulted in his death." Speculation? Improper expert opinion? she can't testify as to this. Also feels like more foundational issues about who is Spector's car here in this whole pocket.
26:47, how the car veered calls for speculation. She isn't an expert on cars and can't testify there hasn't been 702 foundation.
28:40 Improper expert opinion as to the inference. This objection might not win, but it feels worth making. There hasn't been any foundation that she's an expert on BAC levels.
29:48, another objection that might not be worth making, but speculation about the napkin. The napkin doesn't imply that he was at the bar where it came from.
30:14 Hearsay as to the bartender's comments
31:05 I feel like this needs to be objected to in some form, not entirely sure what. Speculation as to his focus? 403? Relevance as to what she finds odd about demeanor? Or even character evidence, I could argue that it's being used to show a propensity for disregard of human life.
31:18 Hearsay as to takes good care of it
31:44 Hearsay as to the mechanic
32:48 Improper expert opinion as to car parts
33:20 more improper opinion
35:12 If my prior foundation objections were sustained they would be renewed here about the drunkness and cause of death
36:04. Character evidence and speculation. It's being used to show a propensity for recklessness, and she's speculating about how the marital issues caused the drinking and the crash
36:13 More prejudicial than probative. The jury has no business hearing about criminal charges. Although I'm not sure if this is true
36:56 only objection if I had won prior objections
37:10 speculation as to could have avoided the pothole
37:15 calls for speculation
37:32 more speculation
Thanks for the video, it was fun practice.
It is so much easier to learn when you are watching a charismatic young man.
I'm new to this so this might sounds dumb
13:54 Nonresponsive-Question did not ask for whether or not she was getting paid, relevance?
15:35 Compound? Leading?
16:45 Foundation-Did not testify on her methods that would have recreated the wreck therefore the witness would not know
improper expert testimony-Witness's job is to gather and document information and is not qualified as a detective to speculate how this occurred, only what was on the scene
19:28 Hearsay- Used to prove that it was the defendant that was driving that fast
big gap here cuz I was eating
28:34 Improper Expert testimony- Has not testified as to how she would know the rate at which blood alcohol levels would change in the human body. Vareity of factors that could effect that such as whether or not the witnes went to the bathroom, or drank more water that would have lowered, all remain purely speculative
29:25 Foundation-Has not testified as to how it was from a nearby bar, did not testify if there were any distinct features on the napkin that would have pointed it to the specific bar, has not testified as to how she would recognize napkins (such as if she was a patron) and therefore we can't be sure whether or not the defendant brought it from home, bar, or just picked it off the street.
30:14 Hearsay-Cannot use this as proof to say that defendant showed up at that time directly, also no foundation has been laid as how the onlooker identified the defendant
30:59 Speculation- Witness doesn't;t know what the defendant prioritized, it would require her to be a mind reader.
31:Speculation-In the conversation, defendant never told her any procedures done to the car
35:58 Improper Character Evidence
37:10-Assumes fact not in evidence-Even she said there is no concrete proof that the defendant was drunk, now she just states it. Then uses it to assume his driving capabilities at the time in an incident with the pothole which the witness has failed to outline any possible alternatives aside from alcohol. A bird could have hit his windshield distracting, we don't know enough about the scene of the crime (specifically outward distractions present at the time) to say that a sober defendant would have avoided the pothole
37:29-Speculation-Doesn't know how good the defendant is at driving to confidently state that if he was sober a pothole wouldn't;t have thrown him off, the charge is vehicular manslaughter where the opposing counsel must prove negligence, but because we don't know and therefore can't say however sober person would perfectly react to something as dangerous as a pothole, they can't place fault
Video starts at 12:30.
I believe asking for a like does work. You've given the viewer an action. I think it's nature for people to want to do what's asked, especially if they like the person doing the asking. You're somewhat likeable. 😂 When making websites, I find verb work better than non-actions. For instance "Register Now" vs "Registration Form".
I'm representing myself in an upcoming hearing. Your videos are phenomenal. I'm so glad I've started watching them. I subscribed to your channel and have been making sure to like all the videos I've watched.
I appreciate the support! 🙌
13:11 - Asked and answered
14:45 - narrative??
17:25 - asked and answered
17:54 - relevance
19:02 - Speculation
19:25 - hearsay
19:55 - speculation
25:47 - speculation
27:23 - speculation
30:08 - Hearsay
31:02 - speculation
34:52 - asked and answered
35:18 - hearsay
35:53 - character evidence
Really not sure about many of these, but this is what I've got...any feedback would be much appreciated.
13:11 - i don't agree with asked and answered as the counsel is not forcing a specific answer out of the witness, just clarifying details
13:40- around here I said speculation because the witness is guessing and relying on estimations to lay the foundation of her experience
14:45- I agree with the objection to the narrative as the witness moved away from just answering the questions to fluff the collection of the scene
17:50- I agree with relevance; the car Mr. Spector drove has no relevance to furthering the case at hand
18:50- cause for speculation...the question asks leads to speculation by the witness
19:02- I agree with speculation- the witness is speculating as to the state of Mr Specter
19:22- hearsay, not direct witness account
25:47- I do not agree with speculation, she is just defining her own graph for the jury
27:23- I don't agree that this is speculation as she did in fact go to the hospital for the blood draw but I am not sure because she may be speculating on the state of Mr spector after the crash again
28:30- inadmissible opinion of lay; guessing the numbers as to the level of alcohol in his blood at the time of the crash/she is not an expert on toxicology
30:08- I agree with hearsay
31:03- instead of speculation, I think it is an objection to character evidence
31:42- I don't know if it is asked or answered or objection to narrative
33:35- asked and answered; judicial economy
37:48- speculation
35:59- character evidence
what is the point of this video if the teacher does not give us the feedback, I also have a list but no way to know if I am correct
@@estermokonchu5114 for 13:40, The witness is an expert in her own work, therefor meets the required threshhold under rule 702.
Thank you so much from an aspiring lawyer! I’ve only dipped my toe into the waters a little bit given how young I am, but I’m always looking for more exposure
You're very welcome and best of luck!
19:26 - hearsay that he was driving fast
27:24 and 29:23 Objections for relevance and unfair prejudice of the smell of alcohol on his breath
29:54 - anything she mentioned about what Donna Paulson said is hearsay and extrinsic evidence
31:40 - Hearsay
I actually don't think that she said she could smell alcohol on his breath. I'd most likely hold off on that objection and use cross to start building the proof that the alcohol smell came from the broken beer bottle.
First she says the tie rod looked like it was cut- (pretty hard to do since it is a thick piece of metal) then she says it broke because of the pothole. I think I would use that for impeachment purposes.
Objections: I am a 1L and taking a summer mock trial class and trying to grasp the concepts. This video is a great demonstration. I may have identified some of these wrong but wanted to participate. Is it possible for you to post all the correct objections that one could have made thanks?
13:10 counsel testifying about 30 yrs?
15:16 Leading maybe just you on the scene?
15:42 Compound
19:32 Hearsay about what witness said driving fast
21.4 Ask and answered?
27.26 Compound
28.57 assuming facts not in evidence
30.11 Hearsay about person from Bar
34.18 Compound
36.08 character evidence/relevance
Since I have all of the objections analyzed in Trial Ad Academy, I can't necessarily share all of the answers here since that wouldn't be fair for those enrolled in the course. But, I'll provide some feedback to what you've posted:
13:10 - You should ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish with each objection. For this one, I can't see a particular goal and the risk you'd run is looking like you're trying to hide something from the jury. Since this statement is being made casually and doesn't hurt your case, I'd avoid the risk.
15:16 - This objection doesn't necessarily serve a purpose either.
15:42 - Definitely compound! Haha. But, you are typically going to make the compound objection during cross so that it is clear which questions your witness is answering. In other words, if a compound question is asked to your witness on cross, you want to object to make sure everyone is on the same page with what is being asked and answered. With a direct examination like this, if the question is confusing (like it is here haha), then that is usually going to benefit your side. I probably wouldn't object here.
Hope this helps!
PS... you nailed some of these objections!
love the suits references. cool video thanks
Great video guys! Keep up the good work! The errors below occur more than once (as you know) ... but I won't be the annoying lawyer that objects to everything!
Objection 15.37 - double ended question! (“Was the road shut down or were cars driving?")
Objection 17.04 - speculative (reference to what killed the victim.)
objection 17.25 - repetitive / inviting a narrative (asking for a re-cap.)
Objection 19.26 - hearsay (The detective says what the other witnesses told her. Eg. the car was travelling at ‘an excessive speed’.)
Btw - just subscribed!
I appreciate it! And you bring up a great point about not wanting to object to every little thing!
about the 2nd isn't that calls for speculation
This was a lot of fun. I'm just a regular shmegular guy and even I got some of these objections right!
15:15: Speculation or creating a narrative that there was a Patrol Officer that was 1st on the scene.
15:41: Compound question “was the road shut down, were cars still driving”
16:52: Speculation - she does not know how the accident happened because she wasn’t there to witness it
16:56: Speculation - Is it not necessary to first identify whose car is whose or does the Court allow you to assume?
17:01: Speculation - We’re going to assume that the impact killed Mr. Pearson?
17:50: Asked an answer - “You’re talking about Mr. Spector’s car…” rather than "Whose car are you referring to?" or similar.
19:21: Hearsay - she doesn’t know if the witness had seen Mr. Spector’s car.
19:25: HEARSAY!!!
Would love some feedback. I understand that there needs to be purpose behind each objection but what if we allow these items and then hurts us later? For example, 15:15 could be significant if that Patrol Officer is going to be called as a witness. Couldn't the Jury give more weight to that officer's testimony then since he was there earlier according to Zayne?
For the 17:01 objection, I wouldn't say it's speculation because as an expert witness, I believe she's qualified and has enough experience to make the claim that the impact killed Pearson. Given she's worked for years as a police officer who dealed particularly with car accidents, she has plenty of experience understanding the physics of car accidents. Also, as a detective, it's her job to make logical inferences and find patterns among previous car accidents. She does say objectively that it killed him, so I guess you could object to that and make the point that she can only have an opinion unless she can prove her statement with evidence.
Objection calls for medical diagnosis. She doesn't know that the accident caused his death-she is not a physician or medical examiner. He could have died first which caused the accidentl
Haha I like your style!
:D made me jump-laugh!!!! So great!
It's a motor vehicle accident case, witness is not bringing out the technical terms such as offside, nearside of Mr. So and so lane. The rear of the car, point of impact, resultant position etc.😊
You should be a teacher/ professor as well..good job
this is great... make more of this people. this would help lawyers new to litigation/trial
Glad you like it!
7:53 Objection, ABA Ethics Rule 7.3 Counselor may not represent client as he is expected to be called as a material witness.
Judge: Sustained
7:53 Objection, Counselor is biased as he has and is expected to be living in the DOG HOUSE for the rest of his life.
Judge: Sustained, Counselor it's in your interest not call your wife as a witness.
12:47 Objection leading question.
Counselor: It's for foundation and to limit wasting this courts time.
Judge: Sustained, it's for me to decide if something is wasting this courts time.
The Dog House one has me cracking up! Wait until you see the Cross Examination video later this week 😅
Would an objection to her inference of the blood alcohol being at the legal limit 2 hours earlier be acceptable. I think I would throw it out there anyway because again it calls for medical diagnosis. She does not know his medical conditions or how fast or slow he metabolizes and she doesn't have the medical background to know that.
Boom.
Yeah you should always say it it's always a reminder for me
Does she have experience enough to make the determination as to the cause of death?
13:08 leading "Almost 30 years of experience, more or less?"
15:42 compound question "was the road shut down or were there cars still driving?"
15: 51 speculation or lack foundation since no "eye witnesses statement have been laid" "She is speculating as to what happened with no first hand knowledge."
16:30-17:00 speculation as to cause of death and what happen without any foundation.
17:20 speculation, as to the direction cars were traveling.
17:38 speculation, as it appears to. all opinion with no facts to back it up.
18:00 speculation / foundation, she arrived on scene after the accident, how does she know Mr specter was driving?
18:52: compound question
19:30-42: hearsay and speculation on how fast he was driving.
19: 40- 20:00: speculation.
20: 35 Speculation, no proof Mr. Specter identifies as an individual.
21:06 speculation as to which lane he was in. Lack of personal knowledge and opinion.
21: 17 speculation and opinion as to which lane again
21:23: compound question.
21:44 speculation or opinion as to who the hub cap belongs to.
22:03 Leading question into a direct question.
stopped watching cause i am outta time. Good night.
It ought to be how was the nature of traffic at the time
37:14 objection. Speculation. Anybody driving within speed limit could potentially lose control of the vehicle if it hits the pot hole, especially that a tire rod was found to be broken. She also testified that the tire rod may have broke from normal wear and tear. That is not proof that Mr. Specter was driving under the influence.
"smashed that like button" "clicked subscribe"
17:04. Speculation as to what actually killed Mr. Pearson.
17:23. Asked and answered.
17:35 Speculation. “It appears.”18:18 Irrelevant
19:55 Speculation Irrelevant
20:21 Speculation
23:00 Irrelevant
25:20 Speculation.
27:30 Leading.
28:38 Speculation
30:10 irrelevant ;hearsay
31:30 Irrelevant; Lacking foundation
31:45 Irrelevant
36:36 Speculation asked and answered.
33:20 asked and answered. Speculation Irrelevant
35:10 asked and answered.Speculation
Dude I’m 7 minutes in and I been patiently waiting 7:29
Objection leading " Was the road open to traffic or not "
14:47-15:10 speculation
16:13 objection " speculation' the witness cannot say what was the cause of death
19;13 objection 'speculation' alcohol smell
19;16 objection 'hearsay' out of court evidence by another
19:56 objection 'speculation' witness cannot say why the car was being driven at a fast rate
31:05 objection. Improper characterization. Also Detective Zane don’t have the qualifications to give her expert opinion on a person’s character.
Your explanations are down to earth. Be more precise.
Haha both of those are a product of me not scripting the videos. I just hit record and hope for the best haha
30:20 OBJECTION! Hearsay!
13:00 Narrative
13:13 Asked and answered
14:14 Narrative
16:50 Opinion
18:00 Relevance
18:12 Narrative
19:26 Opinion, and Hearsay
26:45 Opinion
The Opinion and Hearsay objections are solid! I'm not sure that the other ones would be worth making.
Skip to minute 12.5, omg
Thank you so much.
😂😂😂wow
19:40 OBJECTION! Hearsay!
Wouldn’t that be covered by hearsay exemption rule “excited utterance”?
are there the final answers posted for home work assignment especially what sill impeach 80% of the testimony?
A lot of suits references 😄
Haha gotta try to spice it up!
So nobody gone comment on how her testimony seemed so real. She's a lawyer not a cop and I almost forgot. #Oscar
😂 she’s going to love this comment
14:34 I believe once again
Hearsay
How do you make sure you are a part of the Law Venture Community?
There are a number of ways. The easiest may be going to the description of this video and clicking the link for the Objection Cheat Sheet. Another route is going to lawventure.com and signing up on the homepage. Hope this helps!
Calls for Narrative.
(Strikes 80% of this) 😅
Winner
28:00 objection. speculation on what would have the alcohol level been 2 hrs earlier. Detective Zane is not qualified to testify as medical expert.
17:53 relevance? How is the type of car or even the color of the car in any way relevant in today's case?
19:26 hearsay. This is an out of court statement being offered for the truth of the matter asserted therefore it is inadmissible.
30:11 hearsay. Out of court statements being offered for the truth of the matter asserted therefore it's inadmissible.
31:03 speculation. The witness is testifying to the mindset of the defendant, and cannot testify as to the mindset.
31:42 hearsay. Out of court statements being offered for the truth of the matter asserted therefore it's inadmissible.
35:59 improper character evidence.
Hi...Just a comment..can you introduce yourself in the beginning of your videos..would like to know more about you and your profession ..in the private sector or DA, etc
14:28 calls for narrative
14:21 wife said I believe again hearsay
35:10 OBJECTION! Speculation
😴
Did the exam start yet? Holy 15 minute intro
What’s the difference between “motion limite” and “motion in limite?”
It’s called motion in limine.
No thing as motion limine.
I have a list of objections but overall would you move to strike her testimony because she was not admitted as an expert witness? You did ask her background but did not identify her as an expert.
BOOM. This is a huge issue that seems to be getting overlooked 🙌 probably can’t strike the whole testimony though…
@@LawVenture Thanks. I am practicing my courtroom skills because I am one of the first licensed Legal Paraprofessionals in AZ. I now have a license to practice family law which amazing. Before this new license was in effect, I was an advanced certified paralegal and have significant experience reviewing documents to make objections in advance of a hearing but not much experience as it relates to objections on the fly. So I love this. Thank you! And yes not the whole testimony.
35:56 OBJECTION! Relevance!
Fan of suits are we Mrs. Zane? 😂
We got Rachel Zane, Specter, and my future ex wife and personal favorite, Donna 😁 love it! 😂
13:42 I believe about 25 of them
Hearsy once your wife said I believe
This is more like a deposition. Otherwise the whole video is objectionable
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Objection undue delay.
OBJECTION YOUR HONOR HEARSAY THE DETECTIVE CANNOT TESITY TO HEARSAY THAT SHE GOT FROM A WITNESS AT THE SCENE,
19:19 for me
OJECTION YOUR HONOR detective was not at the scene and therefore she cannot testify as to what happened because she had no personal first hand knowledege SPECULATING
The first 10 minutes of this video is absolutely useless. It's about him asking for likes and begging not to end this video before it ends
Sir way too much Chit Chat just get to the point and move on
How is this helpful if we must look to the comment section and check ourselves against other aspiring attorneys, I don't want to absorb something that is wrong, where is the video where you break down the direct and say "ok so at this time stamp you should have thought about this objection", there is no feedback
Looks like you skipped the part at 7:09, which answers your last question. The RUclips version is meant to be an exercise of your current knowledge. If you’re not comfortable in that knowledge (which is ok), I recommend diving into the objection videos so you can come back and apply what you’ve learned. I also think some of the comments on this video provide great input. Best of luck on your journey!
3:25 No it does not, it actually makes me want (and I usually do) smash dislike.
Be prepared to smash dislike on most of the Law Venture videos haha
You are very verbose and it’s meandering . Video could have been ten minutes shorter.
objection u gay