1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,920
All right, let's let's dive into
legal objections. 

2
00:00:02,960 --> 00:00:08,560
OK, now, I know, I know. 
At first glance, they might 

3
00:00:08,560 --> 00:00:11,600
seem, well, a little dry, maybe 
even boring. 

4
00:00:11,600 --> 00:00:13,760
Yeah. 
But trust me on this. 

5
00:00:14,120 --> 00:00:16,880
Mastering this stuff. 
This is like unlocking a secret 

6
00:00:16,880 --> 00:00:19,440
weapon for exams. 
Absolutely. 

7
00:00:19,480 --> 00:00:21,800
And for when you're actually out
there practicing law. 

8
00:00:22,400 --> 00:00:24,960
Could not agree more. 
So let me ask you this. 

9
00:00:25,040 --> 00:00:27,680
Sure, someone comes up to you 
and says explain legal 

10
00:00:27,680 --> 00:00:29,960
objections. 
Like what are they? 

11
00:00:30,840 --> 00:00:34,280
Well, exactly. 
Everyone just running around 

12
00:00:34,280 --> 00:00:36,160
doing whatever they want. 
Yeah, it'd be a mess. 

13
00:00:36,280 --> 00:00:38,200
Objections. 
They're the referees in the 

14
00:00:38,200 --> 00:00:41,560
courtroom, OK? 
Making sure everyone plays fair 

15
00:00:42,400 --> 00:00:43,800
like that, keeping things on 
track. 

16
00:00:43,800 --> 00:00:46,400
So it's more than just, you 
know, knowing all the rules, 

17
00:00:46,480 --> 00:00:48,040
right? 
It's about using them to make 

18
00:00:48,040 --> 00:00:50,240
sure it's a fair fight. 
Exactly. 

19
00:00:50,560 --> 00:00:52,200
And here's where it gets really 
interesting. 

20
00:00:52,400 --> 00:00:55,280
OK, objections. 
You can use them to kind of 

21
00:00:55,280 --> 00:00:59,520
nudge the jury, you know, even 
if you don't win the objection. 

22
00:00:59,640 --> 00:01:02,480
Wait, what do you mean? 
If the judge says overruled, 

23
00:01:03,160 --> 00:01:05,480
isn't that it Like the evidence 
is in? 

24
00:01:05,640 --> 00:01:07,520
Yeah, but think about the jury, 
OK? 

25
00:01:07,520 --> 00:01:10,760
They see you standing up, 
fighting for your client, 

26
00:01:10,760 --> 00:01:14,680
raising this concern, right? 
Even if the judge allows it, 

27
00:01:14,680 --> 00:01:16,920
you've planted a seed. 
Interesting. 

28
00:01:16,920 --> 00:01:19,440
They might start thinking, hmm, 
maybe there's something fishy 

29
00:01:19,440 --> 00:01:21,520
here. 
Oh, so it's like you're raising 

30
00:01:21,520 --> 00:01:23,000
a red flag? 
Yeah, exactly. 

31
00:01:23,000 --> 00:01:25,320
Even if you don't win that 
battle right then and there. 

32
00:01:25,320 --> 00:01:29,200
It's all about strategy. 
Wow, this is This is making me 

33
00:01:29,200 --> 00:01:31,960
rethink objections. 
Yeah, they're more than just 

34
00:01:31,960 --> 00:01:34,520
about knowing the rules. 
It's about thinking ahead. 

35
00:01:35,000 --> 00:01:38,320
So you're saying it's not just 
about winning or losing that 

36
00:01:38,320 --> 00:01:39,920
objection in the moment? 
Nope. 

37
00:01:40,400 --> 00:01:43,560
It's about the big picture, the 
whole narrative of the case. 

38
00:01:43,560 --> 00:01:45,120
Absolutely. 
It's about building your case 

39
00:01:45,120 --> 00:01:47,520
strategically. 
OK, this is blowing my mind a 

40
00:01:47,520 --> 00:01:51,680
little. 
So knowing these rules, it's not

41
00:01:51,680 --> 00:01:54,360
just about acing those law 
school exams, right? 

42
00:01:54,400 --> 00:01:57,400
It's about being a good lawyer. 
It's about being a smart lawyer.

43
00:01:57,840 --> 00:01:59,480
So let's get into the rules 
themselves. 

44
00:01:59,480 --> 00:02:01,640
Let's do it. 
I know there are tons of 

45
00:02:01,640 --> 00:02:05,120
different types of objections. 
Oh yeah, Where do we even start?

46
00:02:05,120 --> 00:02:07,600
How do we organize all this? 
Well, you can break them down 

47
00:02:07,600 --> 00:02:10,240
into three main groups. 
OK, three main groups. 

48
00:02:10,360 --> 00:02:14,920
Objections to the questions 
being asked, objections to the 

49
00:02:14,960 --> 00:02:18,280
evidence being presented, OK, 
and objections to, you know, 

50
00:02:18,280 --> 00:02:20,120
people's conduct in the 
courtroom all. 

51
00:02:20,120 --> 00:02:21,880
Right, three main categories. 
That makes sense. 

52
00:02:22,280 --> 00:02:24,920
So let's start with objections 
to questions, OK? 

53
00:02:24,920 --> 00:02:27,320
What are some of the big ones 
there, the ones we really need 

54
00:02:27,320 --> 00:02:28,920
to know? 
Well, you'll definitely run into

55
00:02:28,920 --> 00:02:31,240
the leading question objection. 
Leading question, right? 

56
00:02:31,240 --> 00:02:33,200
This is a classic. 
OK, remind me, what's a leading 

57
00:02:33,200 --> 00:02:35,720
question again? 
It's when during direct 

58
00:02:35,720 --> 00:02:39,560
examination the lawyer asks the 
question, but it's almost like 

59
00:02:39,560 --> 00:02:41,720
they're telling the witness what
to say. 

60
00:02:41,840 --> 00:02:43,560
Right, right. 
Like putting words in their 

61
00:02:43,560 --> 00:02:44,400
mouth. 
Exactly. 

62
00:02:44,400 --> 00:02:47,600
Instead of letting the witness 
tell their story, they're 

63
00:02:47,600 --> 00:02:49,560
leading them to a specific 
answer. 

64
00:02:50,040 --> 00:02:53,160
OK, so like give me an example. 
Sure. 

65
00:02:53,160 --> 00:02:56,080
Think of a lawyer asking. 
The car was speeding, wasn't it?

66
00:02:56,760 --> 00:02:58,920
OK, Yeah, it's. 
Not really a question, it's 

67
00:02:58,920 --> 00:03:00,640
almost a statement, right? 
It is. 

68
00:03:00,720 --> 00:03:04,680
It doesn't give the witness a 
chance to give their own, you 

69
00:03:04,680 --> 00:03:06,360
know, unbiased account. 
Got it. 

70
00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:10,680
So leading questions bad during 
direct examination. 

71
00:03:10,680 --> 00:03:12,080
Big no no. 
What about? 

72
00:03:13,120 --> 00:03:15,400
What about cross examination? 
Is it OK then? 

73
00:03:15,400 --> 00:03:17,880
Good point. 
Yeah, on Cross it's totally 

74
00:03:17,880 --> 00:03:20,240
allowed. 
The whole point of Cross is to 

75
00:03:20,240 --> 00:03:21,640
kind of challenge the witness, 
right? 

76
00:03:21,640 --> 00:03:23,360
Yeah, to poke holes in their 
story. 

77
00:03:23,360 --> 00:03:25,760
Exactly. 
So leading questions, they're 

78
00:03:25,760 --> 00:03:28,800
fair game then? 
So the rules change depending on

79
00:03:28,800 --> 00:03:31,720
who you're questioning. 
If it's your own witness, no 

80
00:03:31,720 --> 00:03:34,200
leading. 
If it's their witness, go for 

81
00:03:34,200 --> 00:03:35,200
it. 
You got it. 

82
00:03:35,240 --> 00:03:39,120
OK, that makes sense. 
What other tricky questions 

83
00:03:39,120 --> 00:03:43,760
should we look out for? 
How about the compound question?

84
00:03:44,280 --> 00:03:47,480
That one can be a real headache.
Compound question, what's that? 

85
00:03:48,000 --> 00:03:51,560
It's when a lawyer tries to cram
like two or three questions, Oh 

86
00:03:51,560 --> 00:03:55,240
no into one OK and it makes it 
impossible for the witness to 

87
00:03:55,240 --> 00:03:57,320
give a straight answer. 
Oh, I see. 

88
00:03:57,320 --> 00:03:58,920
Yeah. 
Like did you see the defendant 

89
00:03:58,920 --> 00:04:02,120
leave the building and did he 
have a weapon and what time was 

90
00:04:02,120 --> 00:04:03,960
it? 
Wow, Yeah, that's a lot. 

91
00:04:04,040 --> 00:04:07,240
Right, the poor witness, they're
like, well, yes to one part, 

92
00:04:07,240 --> 00:04:09,280
but. 
It just gets messy. 

93
00:04:09,480 --> 00:04:11,560
Exactly. 
A simple yes or no just won't 

94
00:04:11,560 --> 00:04:13,400
cut it. 
And it's confusing for the jury 

95
00:04:13,400 --> 00:04:14,800
too, right? 
Oh, absolutely. 

96
00:04:14,800 --> 00:04:17,600
They won't know what the witness
is actually saying yes or no to.

97
00:04:17,600 --> 00:04:19,720
It muddies the waters. 
Yeah, not good. 

98
00:04:19,720 --> 00:04:21,120
Definitely a good one to object 
to. 

99
00:04:21,160 --> 00:04:24,760
So looting questions, compound 
questions. 

100
00:04:24,760 --> 00:04:26,560
I'm starting to feel like a pro 
already. 

101
00:04:26,560 --> 00:04:28,880
You're getting there. 
What else should we add to our 

102
00:04:28,880 --> 00:04:31,400
objection arsenal? 
Let's talk about argumentative 

103
00:04:31,400 --> 00:04:33,840
questions. 
Argumentative. 

104
00:04:34,280 --> 00:04:36,760
I feel like I hear that one all 
the time, even outside of court.

105
00:04:37,520 --> 00:04:39,400
Right. 
But in the courtroom, it has a 

106
00:04:39,400 --> 00:04:42,040
very specific meaning. 
OK, So what makes a question 

107
00:04:42,200 --> 00:04:45,160
argumentative in this context? 
It's not really about getting 

108
00:04:45,160 --> 00:04:48,680
information, it's more about the
lawyer, you know, trying to pick

109
00:04:48,680 --> 00:04:51,200
a fight with the witness. 
Like trying to get under their 

110
00:04:51,200 --> 00:04:53,040
skin. 
Yeah, to make them look bad in 

111
00:04:53,040 --> 00:04:54,800
front of the jury. 
Oh, got it. 

112
00:04:54,840 --> 00:04:57,880
Instead of asking a genuine 
question, they're making a 

113
00:04:57,880 --> 00:05:00,680
statement, but disguised as a 
question. 

114
00:05:00,760 --> 00:05:01,800
Sneaky. 
Right. 

115
00:05:01,800 --> 00:05:04,800
Like, come on, you can't 
seriously believe that, can you?

116
00:05:05,520 --> 00:05:07,120
That's not really a question, is
it? 

117
00:05:07,160 --> 00:05:08,880
Nope, it's more like an 
accusation. 

118
00:05:09,160 --> 00:05:11,600
Yeah, the lawyer's just trying 
to score points, not uncover the

119
00:05:11,600 --> 00:05:12,840
truth. 
Exactly. 

120
00:05:12,840 --> 00:05:16,760
It disrupts the flow, creates 
this hostile vibe, and that's 

121
00:05:16,760 --> 00:05:19,600
why it's objectionable. 
OK, argumentative questions are 

122
00:05:19,600 --> 00:05:21,360
out. 
What else should we watch for? 

123
00:05:22,760 --> 00:05:26,440
Roof see calls for speculation. 
That's a big one. 

124
00:05:26,440 --> 00:05:28,720
Calls for speculation. 
Break that down for me. 

125
00:05:28,760 --> 00:05:33,160
It's when a lawyer asks a 
witness to guess, you know, or 

126
00:05:33,160 --> 00:05:35,720
to make assumptions about things
they don't actually know. 

127
00:05:35,880 --> 00:05:38,880
So like trying to get them to 
read someone's mind. 

128
00:05:38,880 --> 00:05:41,800
Pretty much like why do you 
think the defendant ran away? 

129
00:05:42,120 --> 00:05:42,880
Oh yeah. 
Right. 

130
00:05:43,000 --> 00:05:47,320
The witness can only talk about 
what they saw, what they heard 

131
00:05:47,440 --> 00:05:49,680
right now, not what was going on
in someone else's head. 

132
00:05:49,760 --> 00:05:51,160
It's not a mind mind reading 
contest. 

133
00:05:51,160 --> 00:05:53,160
Exactly. 
It's about sticking to the 

134
00:05:53,160 --> 00:05:55,720
facts, to what the witness 
actually observed. 

135
00:05:55,760 --> 00:05:57,960
No fortune telling allowed in 
the courtroom. 

136
00:05:58,600 --> 00:06:03,000
Right witnesses can only testify
to what they actually know, not 

137
00:06:03,000 --> 00:06:04,480
what they think might have 
happened. 

138
00:06:04,720 --> 00:06:07,600
Got it. 
So we've got leading questions, 

139
00:06:07,600 --> 00:06:10,200
compound questions, 
argumentative questions, calls 

140
00:06:10,200 --> 00:06:13,120
for speculation. 
This is a lot to keep track of. 

141
00:06:13,200 --> 00:06:15,880
It is, but you're doing great. 
Well I have a great teacher. 

142
00:06:16,960 --> 00:06:20,040
OK, so any other question 
related objections we need to 

143
00:06:20,040 --> 00:06:22,720
have in our back pocket? 
Let's talk about vague or 

144
00:06:22,720 --> 00:06:25,280
ambiguous question. 
OK, I could see how those could 

145
00:06:25,280 --> 00:06:27,480
cause problems. 
Imagine a lawyer asking. 

146
00:06:27,480 --> 00:06:31,320
So tell us what happened. 
Oh yeah, no context, no time 

147
00:06:31,320 --> 00:06:33,040
frame. 
Just what happened? 

148
00:06:33,040 --> 00:06:35,480
That's so broad. 
It is and the witness is going 

149
00:06:35,480 --> 00:06:38,520
to be like where do I even 
start? 

150
00:06:39,320 --> 00:06:40,680
Right. 
It's like giving someone 

151
00:06:40,680 --> 00:06:42,680
directions and saying just go 
that way. 

152
00:06:42,680 --> 00:06:44,360
Exactly. 
They'll end up lost totally 

153
00:06:44,440 --> 00:06:47,120
vague questions. 
They just lead to rambling 

154
00:06:47,360 --> 00:06:49,960
irrelevant answers. 
Waste of everyone's time. 

155
00:06:49,960 --> 00:06:53,480
Exactly. 
So clarity is key when you're 

156
00:06:53,480 --> 00:06:55,080
questioning a witness. 
Got it. 

157
00:06:55,480 --> 00:06:57,840
Clarity. 
OK, what about asked and 

158
00:06:57,840 --> 00:07:00,520
answered. 
When does that one come into 

159
00:07:00,520 --> 00:07:02,120
play? 
This one's pretty simple. 

160
00:07:02,120 --> 00:07:04,120
It's when, you know the opposing
counsel. 

161
00:07:04,120 --> 00:07:07,080
Yeah, they just keep asking the 
same question over and over. 

162
00:07:07,080 --> 00:07:08,840
Right when they do that. 
Even though the witness has 

163
00:07:08,840 --> 00:07:10,920
already answered. 
It like trying to wear them 

164
00:07:10,920 --> 00:07:13,200
down, hoping they'll slip up and
say something different. 

165
00:07:13,200 --> 00:07:15,320
It can be a tactic for sure. 
Yeah, it's annoying. 

166
00:07:15,600 --> 00:07:17,920
And it can also make the jury 
think we're trying to hide 

167
00:07:17,920 --> 00:07:20,000
something by not letting the 
witness answer. 

168
00:07:20,000 --> 00:07:24,120
So some repetition is OK, but 
when they just keep hammering 

169
00:07:24,120 --> 00:07:26,920
the same point right, it starts 
to look suspicious. 

170
00:07:26,920 --> 00:07:28,440
Exactly. 
It can backfire. 

171
00:07:28,440 --> 00:07:31,080
OK, so those are some of the big
ones when it comes to 

172
00:07:31,080 --> 00:07:33,680
objections, to questions. 
Yeah, those are the main ones. 

173
00:07:33,880 --> 00:07:35,680
It's amazing how many nuances 
there are. 

174
00:07:35,760 --> 00:07:38,800
It is, and how each objection 
can really impact the whole 

175
00:07:38,800 --> 00:07:40,640
trial. 
They absolutely can. 

176
00:07:40,680 --> 00:07:42,600
And we've only just scratched 
the surface. 

177
00:07:42,600 --> 00:07:44,200
We've got a lot more ground to 
cover. 

178
00:07:44,240 --> 00:07:46,640
I can't wait. 
I'm ready for objections to 

179
00:07:46,640 --> 00:07:48,440
evidence all. 
Right, let's get into it. 

180
00:07:48,440 --> 00:07:50,560
OK, so objections to evidence 
all. 

181
00:07:50,560 --> 00:07:53,600
Right, hit me with it. 
What are we trying to do when we

182
00:07:53,600 --> 00:07:56,280
object to a piece of evidence? 
What's the goal? 

183
00:07:56,400 --> 00:07:57,920
Well. 
Think of it this way. 

184
00:07:57,920 --> 00:08:00,120
We're like the guardians of the 
courtroom, right? 

185
00:08:00,120 --> 00:08:01,640
OK. 
We got to make sure that the 

186
00:08:01,640 --> 00:08:05,720
jury only hears good evidence. 
Good evidence meaning, you know.

187
00:08:05,720 --> 00:08:08,360
Stuff that's relevant, reliable.
So we're making sure the jury's 

188
00:08:08,360 --> 00:08:11,120
decision is based on, like, 
solid facts. 

189
00:08:11,120 --> 00:08:12,680
Exactly. 
Not on something that's 

190
00:08:12,680 --> 00:08:14,960
misleading or, you know, just 
plain wrong. 

191
00:08:15,000 --> 00:08:16,120
OK. 
Yeah, that makes sense. 

192
00:08:16,120 --> 00:08:19,200
We're basically quality control 
for the information the jury 

193
00:08:19,200 --> 00:08:20,960
gets. 
OK, I'm liking this analogy. 

194
00:08:20,960 --> 00:08:24,720
So let's dive into some specific
types of evidence objection, 

195
00:08:24,720 --> 00:08:25,560
shall we? 
Yes, please. 

196
00:08:25,560 --> 00:08:28,560
Let's get specific. 
What's like the most common one?

197
00:08:29,080 --> 00:08:32,559
I'd say one you'll see a lot and
one that definitely pops up on 

198
00:08:32,559 --> 00:08:35,640
exams is relevance. 
Relevance. 

199
00:08:36,679 --> 00:08:38,280
OK, yeah, that one seems pretty 
basic. 

200
00:08:38,919 --> 00:08:40,679
How do we know if something's 
relevant or not? 

201
00:08:41,000 --> 00:08:44,080
Well, evidence is relevant if it
makes something that's important

202
00:08:44,080 --> 00:08:46,880
to the case more or less likely 
to be true. 

203
00:08:47,200 --> 00:08:49,840
So it can't just be like some 
juicy gossip. 

204
00:08:49,960 --> 00:08:52,480
Right, it can't just be 
something shocking or attention 

205
00:08:52,480 --> 00:08:55,080
grabbing. 
It has to actually help prove or

206
00:08:55,080 --> 00:08:57,720
disprove a key point. 
Exactly. 

207
00:08:57,840 --> 00:09:00,200
Like imagine the other side 
tries to bring up the 

208
00:09:00,200 --> 00:09:02,120
defendants, I don't know, 
parking tickets. 

209
00:09:02,520 --> 00:09:05,760
Parking tickets in a case about,
let's say, a contract dispute. 

210
00:09:05,760 --> 00:09:07,320
Yeah, totally irrelevant. 
Exactly. 

211
00:09:07,320 --> 00:09:09,200
It's a distraction, right? 
It doesn't actually tell us 

212
00:09:09,200 --> 00:09:10,760
anything useful about the 
contract. 

213
00:09:11,240 --> 00:09:14,560
It'd be like arguing that 
someone who's a bad Parker must 

214
00:09:14,560 --> 00:09:18,600
also be a bad businessman. 
Right, no logical connection. 

215
00:09:18,600 --> 00:09:21,480
There exactly. 
So relevance, that's a big one, 

216
00:09:21,880 --> 00:09:23,680
keeps the trial focused on what 
matters. 

217
00:09:23,680 --> 00:09:27,080
Relevance check. 
OK, what's next on our evidence 

218
00:09:27,080 --> 00:09:30,080
objection hit list? 
This one's a classic hearsay 

219
00:09:30,080 --> 00:09:31,680
hearsay. 
Yeah, I feel like I've heard 

220
00:09:31,680 --> 00:09:33,080
that one like on TV and. 
Stuff. 

221
00:09:33,080 --> 00:09:36,080
It's definitely a popular one. 
But what does it actually mean 

222
00:09:36,080 --> 00:09:39,880
in, you know, real life law? 
Hearsay is basically when 

223
00:09:39,880 --> 00:09:43,280
someone tries to use an out of 
court statement to prove 

224
00:09:43,280 --> 00:09:45,960
something. 
OK, can you give me an example? 

225
00:09:45,960 --> 00:09:48,960
Sure. 
So imagine a witness says, oh, 

226
00:09:49,120 --> 00:09:52,160
my friend told me she saw the 
defendant leaving the scene. 

227
00:09:52,920 --> 00:09:56,240
OK, that's hearsay, because the 
friend isn't there to testify 

228
00:09:56,240 --> 00:09:58,880
herself. 
So we can't cross examine the 

229
00:09:58,880 --> 00:09:59,960
friend. 
Right. 

230
00:10:00,120 --> 00:10:02,880
We can't ask them questions, see
if their story holds up. 

231
00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:05,560
So it's not about whether the 
statement is true or not, it's 

232
00:10:05,560 --> 00:10:08,320
about who said it and if they're
actually in court. 

233
00:10:08,320 --> 00:10:10,080
Exactly. 
We got to hear it straight from 

234
00:10:10,080 --> 00:10:12,600
the source, you know, not second
hand gossip. 

235
00:10:12,960 --> 00:10:15,160
Makes sense. 
So if that friend really wants 

236
00:10:15,160 --> 00:10:18,440
to spill the tea, she's got to 
come to court and do it herself.

237
00:10:18,440 --> 00:10:20,080
Exactly. 
That's how we make sure the 

238
00:10:20,080 --> 00:10:22,080
information is reliable. 
All right, hearsay. 

239
00:10:22,360 --> 00:10:22,960
Got it. 
OK. 

240
00:10:23,400 --> 00:10:25,120
What other evidence objections 
are out there? 

241
00:10:25,120 --> 00:10:27,680
I'm ready for more. 
All right, how about improper 

242
00:10:27,680 --> 00:10:30,280
character evidence? 
Improper character evidence? 

243
00:10:30,280 --> 00:10:33,040
OK, break that one down for me. 
So this is when someone tries to

244
00:10:33,040 --> 00:10:36,480
use a person's past behavior to 
say they must have done 

245
00:10:36,480 --> 00:10:40,600
something bad in this case too. 
So like saying someone stole 

246
00:10:40,600 --> 00:10:42,320
something once so they probably 
did it again. 

247
00:10:42,320 --> 00:10:44,520
Exactly. 
It's like judging someone based 

248
00:10:44,520 --> 00:10:47,200
on their, I don't know, their 
reputation, right? 

249
00:10:47,480 --> 00:10:50,080
Instead of looking at the 
specific evidence in this case. 

250
00:10:50,280 --> 00:10:53,760
It's tempting to do right, but 
it's not how the law. 

251
00:10:53,760 --> 00:10:55,520
Works. 
It's like saying, oh, you got a 

252
00:10:55,520 --> 00:10:57,320
speeding ticket 10 years ago, 
right? 

253
00:10:57,680 --> 00:10:59,240
You must be a reckless driver 
now. 

254
00:10:59,520 --> 00:11:01,960
People change, right? 
We can't assume that just 

255
00:11:01,960 --> 00:11:04,520
because someone did something in
the past, they'll do it again. 

256
00:11:04,520 --> 00:11:08,360
So we're focusing on the facts 
of this case precisely, not on 

257
00:11:08,360 --> 00:11:10,440
someone's history, good or bad. 
You got it. 

258
00:11:10,520 --> 00:11:13,200
OK, improper character evidence.
Check. 

259
00:11:13,320 --> 00:11:15,400
What's next? 
All right, let's talk about lack

260
00:11:15,400 --> 00:11:17,880
of foundation. 
Lack of foundation? 

261
00:11:17,880 --> 00:11:20,400
What does that even mean? 
Sounds more like a construction 

262
00:11:20,400 --> 00:11:24,480
problem than a legal one. 
I guess it could be both, but in

263
00:11:24,480 --> 00:11:29,840
court it means that someone's 
trying to present a piece of 

264
00:11:29,840 --> 00:11:33,280
evidence but they haven't really
shown how it connects to the 

265
00:11:33,280 --> 00:11:35,560
case. 
So like they just throw a 

266
00:11:35,560 --> 00:11:38,000
document on the table and say 
look, it's evidence. 

267
00:11:38,000 --> 00:11:40,800
Yeah, but we don't know where it
came from, who wrote it, if it's

268
00:11:40,800 --> 00:11:43,000
even real. 
It's like finding a random key 

269
00:11:43,000 --> 00:11:47,000
and being like see evidence 
someone was here but we don't 

270
00:11:47,000 --> 00:11:49,160
know what door it unlocks. 
Exactly. 

271
00:11:49,160 --> 00:11:51,560
We need context, right? 
You got to show us how that 

272
00:11:51,560 --> 00:11:54,120
evidence fits into the puzzle. 
So they can't just dump a bunch 

273
00:11:54,120 --> 00:11:56,200
of stuff on us and expect us to 
believe it's important. 

274
00:11:56,200 --> 00:11:58,080
Exactly. 
They need to lay the groundwork,

275
00:11:58,080 --> 00:12:00,920
explain how it all connects. 
Lack of foundation? 

276
00:12:02,000 --> 00:12:04,200
OK, I'm getting it. 
What else you got? 

277
00:12:04,200 --> 00:12:08,280
Two more big ones. 
Best evidence, rule and 

278
00:12:08,280 --> 00:12:12,640
privilege. 
OK, best evidence rule sounds 

279
00:12:12,640 --> 00:12:14,360
intriguing. 
This one's all about, you know, 

280
00:12:14,360 --> 00:12:17,040
when we're dealing with 
documents, the best evidence 

281
00:12:17,040 --> 00:12:21,080
rule basically says that if the 
actual words in a document are 

282
00:12:21,080 --> 00:12:24,280
really important to the case, 
you need the original, not just 

283
00:12:24,280 --> 00:12:25,920
a copy. 
And why is that? 

284
00:12:25,920 --> 00:12:28,080
What's wrong with the copy? 
Well, copies they can be 

285
00:12:28,080 --> 00:12:29,480
changed, right? 
OK, Yeah. 

286
00:12:29,560 --> 00:12:32,680
Faked up the original. 
That's the one we can trust. 

287
00:12:32,840 --> 00:12:35,640
So it's like wanting to see the 
actual, I don't know the 

288
00:12:35,640 --> 00:12:38,080
Constitution, right? 
Not just a picture of it. 

289
00:12:38,080 --> 00:12:39,840
Exactly. 
There's a certain weight that 

290
00:12:39,840 --> 00:12:42,760
comes with the original. 
Yeah, it's the real deal it. 

291
00:12:42,760 --> 00:12:44,920
Just feels more, I don't know, 
official. 

292
00:12:44,960 --> 00:12:46,520
Authentic, yeah. 
Authentic. 

293
00:12:46,520 --> 00:12:48,440
That's the word. 
Best evidence rule. 

294
00:12:48,440 --> 00:12:50,440
Got it. 
OK, what about privilege? 

295
00:12:52,600 --> 00:12:54,560
I feel like that one comes up 
all the time, but I'm not really

296
00:12:54,560 --> 00:12:56,680
sure I get it. 
Privilege is basically a legal 

297
00:12:56,680 --> 00:12:57,960
shield. 
Right Shield. 

298
00:12:58,040 --> 00:13:00,320
Yeah, it protects certain 
conversations from being 

299
00:13:00,320 --> 00:13:02,880
revealed in court. 
Even if they might be like 

300
00:13:03,000 --> 00:13:05,200
really juicy. 
Even then, like think of 

301
00:13:05,200 --> 00:13:08,520
conversations between a lawyer 
and their client. 

302
00:13:08,800 --> 00:13:10,840
Oh, right. 
Or a doctor and their patient. 

303
00:13:10,880 --> 00:13:13,320
Or a therapist and their client.
Exactly. 

304
00:13:13,320 --> 00:13:16,680
Those are all protected. 
So like if I confess all my 

305
00:13:16,680 --> 00:13:19,200
deepest, darkest secrets to my 
therapist. 

306
00:13:19,240 --> 00:13:22,520
Ha ha, hopefully not too dark. 
They can't be forced to spill 

307
00:13:22,600 --> 00:13:24,480
them in court. 
Nope, it's confidential. 

308
00:13:24,640 --> 00:13:26,200
That makes sense. 
It's important, right? 

309
00:13:26,240 --> 00:13:29,040
We want people to be able to 
talk openly and honestly. 

310
00:13:29,080 --> 00:13:30,760
Yeah. 
To get help without being 

311
00:13:30,760 --> 00:13:34,040
afraid. 
Exactly these privileges, they 

312
00:13:34,040 --> 00:13:37,960
exist for a reason. 
OK, so we've covered relevance, 

313
00:13:38,320 --> 00:13:42,440
hearsay, character evidence, 
lack of foundation, best 

314
00:13:42,440 --> 00:13:46,040
evidence and privilege. 
Wow, you've been keeping track. 

315
00:13:46,080 --> 00:13:47,440
I'm trying. 
There's a lot. 

316
00:13:47,560 --> 00:13:49,160
Yeah, evidence, objections, they
can be. 

317
00:13:49,160 --> 00:13:51,840
Tricky they can be, but I'm 
starting to feel more confident 

318
00:13:51,840 --> 00:13:53,440
for sure. 
That's what I like to hear, but 

319
00:13:53,440 --> 00:13:56,000
hey, we're not done yet. 
There's more. 

320
00:13:56,040 --> 00:13:59,520
One more category to go, 
objections to conduct. 

321
00:13:59,640 --> 00:14:01,600
OK, can't wait to hear about 
that one. 

322
00:14:01,600 --> 00:14:04,960
Bring it on. 
OK, so objections to conduct. 

323
00:14:05,040 --> 00:14:08,400
This is our final frontier in 
the world of legal objections. 

324
00:14:08,400 --> 00:14:10,400
That's right. 
And this category, it's all 

325
00:14:10,400 --> 00:14:13,720
about keeping things, you know, 
civilized in the courtroom. 

326
00:14:13,720 --> 00:14:14,480
Civilized. 
OK. 

327
00:14:14,480 --> 00:14:16,920
Yeah, even when the lawyers are 
going at it, you know, fighting 

328
00:14:16,920 --> 00:14:18,960
hard for their clients. 
It gets heated in there. 

329
00:14:18,960 --> 00:14:21,000
Well, it definitely can, but 
there are still rules. 

330
00:14:21,040 --> 00:14:24,480
You know, lines you can't cross.
So objections to conduct, it's 

331
00:14:24,480 --> 00:14:26,040
about maintaining order in the 
court. 

332
00:14:26,160 --> 00:14:27,680
Exactly. 
Making sure everyone's behaving 

333
00:14:27,680 --> 00:14:29,960
professionally, respecting the 
process. 

334
00:14:30,160 --> 00:14:31,600
All right. 
I'm ready to learn how to keep 

335
00:14:31,600 --> 00:14:35,320
those lawyers in line. 
What are some common objections 

336
00:14:35,320 --> 00:14:38,480
to conduct that we might see? 
Well, one that comes up all the 

337
00:14:38,480 --> 00:14:41,240
time is the speaking objection. 
Speaking objection. 

338
00:14:41,240 --> 00:14:44,680
OK, what does that even mean? 
It's when a lawyer tries to, you

339
00:14:44,680 --> 00:14:48,280
know, make a whole argument 
disguised as an objection. 

340
00:14:48,280 --> 00:14:50,840
Sneaky, right? 
They'll stand up, say objection,

341
00:14:51,160 --> 00:14:52,920
and then launch into this whole 
speech. 

342
00:14:52,920 --> 00:14:55,880
Trying to persuade the jury 
while pretending to object. 

343
00:14:55,880 --> 00:14:57,360
Exactly. 
It's like they're trying to 

344
00:14:57,360 --> 00:15:00,400
sneak in a closing argument way 
before it's their turn. 

345
00:15:00,400 --> 00:15:02,760
Not cool. 
So what's the proper way to 

346
00:15:02,800 --> 00:15:05,680
object? 
Keep it short and sweet, state 

347
00:15:05,680 --> 00:15:08,880
the grounds for your objection, 
and then let the judge decide. 

348
00:15:09,280 --> 00:15:12,080
No grandstanding. 
Nope, no speeches allowed during

349
00:15:12,080 --> 00:15:13,000
objection. 
Got it. 

350
00:15:13,320 --> 00:15:18,360
Short, sweet, to the point. 
Okay, what other conduct related

351
00:15:18,360 --> 00:15:20,360
objections should we be on the 
lookout for? 

352
00:15:20,440 --> 00:15:24,120
How about improper argument? 
Improper argument? 

353
00:15:24,320 --> 00:15:25,920
That sounds like a pretty broad 
category. 

354
00:15:25,920 --> 00:15:29,400
What does it actually cover? 
It's basically when a lawyer 

355
00:15:29,400 --> 00:15:33,800
makes a claim during their 
closing argument that's not, you

356
00:15:33,800 --> 00:15:36,280
know, supported by what's been 
presented in court. 

357
00:15:36,840 --> 00:15:38,240
So they can't just make stuff. 
Up. 

358
00:15:38,240 --> 00:15:40,040
Nope. 
It's got a based on the 

359
00:15:40,040 --> 00:15:42,400
evidence, the facts of the case.
It would be like trying to win a

360
00:15:42,400 --> 00:15:44,960
basketball game by making up 
points after the buzzer. 

361
00:15:45,120 --> 00:15:48,400
Ha ha, exactly doesn't work that
way. 

362
00:15:48,640 --> 00:15:51,200
All right, improper argument 
noted. 

363
00:15:52,280 --> 00:15:54,600
What else? 
One that's really important, 

364
00:15:54,600 --> 00:15:58,000
especially for protecting 
witnesses, is badgering the 

365
00:15:58,000 --> 00:15:59,520
witness. 
Badgering the witness? 

366
00:15:59,800 --> 00:16:01,680
Yeah, I can imagine that getting
ugly fast. 

367
00:16:01,800 --> 00:16:04,200
It can. 
It's when a lawyer is, you know,

368
00:16:04,200 --> 00:16:06,360
being overly aggressive with the
witness like. 

369
00:16:06,360 --> 00:16:08,120
Yelling at them, trying to 
intimidate them. 

370
00:16:08,120 --> 00:16:10,640
It can be like that, yeah. 
Or maybe asking the same 

371
00:16:10,640 --> 00:16:12,920
question over and over, even 
though the witness has already 

372
00:16:12,920 --> 00:16:14,520
answered. 
Just trying to wear them down. 

373
00:16:14,760 --> 00:16:17,560
Yeah, it's about creating a 
hostile environment, making the 

374
00:16:17,560 --> 00:16:20,120
witness uncomfortable. 
So it's not just about the 

375
00:16:20,120 --> 00:16:22,680
words, it's about the lawyer's 
whole attitude. 

376
00:16:22,680 --> 00:16:25,440
Exactly. 
Their tone, their body language,

377
00:16:25,440 --> 00:16:27,200
it all contributes. 
You got it. 

378
00:16:27,920 --> 00:16:31,400
So if a lawyer starts getting 
all up in a witness's face, we 

379
00:16:31,400 --> 00:16:34,360
can object based on badgering. 
Absolutely. 

380
00:16:34,360 --> 00:16:36,720
It's the judge's job to make 
sure everyone is treated with 

381
00:16:36,720 --> 00:16:38,000
respect in the courtroom. 
All. 

382
00:16:38,240 --> 00:16:40,640
Right, badgering the witness. 
Another one for the toolkit. 

383
00:16:41,800 --> 00:16:45,240
So we've covered objections to 
questions, objections to 

384
00:16:45,240 --> 00:16:47,720
evidence, and now objections to 
conduct. 

385
00:16:47,880 --> 00:16:51,400
That's right, we've done it. 
I feel like I've learned so 

386
00:16:51,400 --> 00:16:52,920
much. 
I'm glad to hear that and 

387
00:16:52,920 --> 00:16:54,560
remember this is just the 
beginning. 

388
00:16:54,720 --> 00:16:57,600
The more you study, the more you
practice, the better you'll get 

389
00:16:57,600 --> 00:17:00,520
at spotting these issues and 
using objections effectively. 

390
00:17:00,560 --> 00:17:02,720
Yeah, it's not just about 
memorizing a list, it's about 

391
00:17:02,720 --> 00:17:04,720
understanding the strategy 
behind it all. 

392
00:17:04,720 --> 00:17:07,920
Exactly. 
It's about using these tools to 

393
00:17:08,200 --> 00:17:11,280
advocate for your client to 
ensure a fair trial. 

394
00:17:11,480 --> 00:17:13,319
This has been an amazing deep 
dive. 

395
00:17:13,520 --> 00:17:16,760
I feel so much more prepared to 
tackle legal objections, whether

396
00:17:16,760 --> 00:17:20,400
it's in class, on exams, or 
someday in A real courtroom. 

397
00:17:20,480 --> 00:17:23,760
I'm glad we could help remember 
mastering legal objections. 

398
00:17:23,760 --> 00:17:25,440
It's a journey. 
A journey I like. 

399
00:17:25,440 --> 00:17:27,560
That, and it's a journey worth 
taking. 

400
00:17:27,800 --> 00:17:31,240
So keep learning, keep 
practicing, and you'll be well 

401
00:17:31,240 --> 00:17:33,800
on your way to becoming a truly 
effective advocate. 

402
00:17:33,960 --> 00:17:36,280
Great advice. 
And with that, we'll wrap up our

403
00:17:36,280 --> 00:17:38,520
deep dive into the world of 
legal objections. 

404
00:17:38,520 --> 00:17:39,360
Thanks for joining us.