I was a witness to a stabbing one time, my own, and the defense lawyer asked me the same question 3 times in different forms. Finally I asked the judge if I had to answer the question for the third time, his answer was no. Funny the prosecutor's office never said a word until I did. What the defense attorney was trying to do was to confuse me into changing my testimony. My point being that is you are ever on the witness stand take your time and make sure you understand the question before you answer. In this particular case the defense attorney was trying to confuse me with right and left but I didn't fall for the bait. Keep the good stuff coming Steve.
My father was called as an expert witness a number of times, and reading the transcripts one of the opposing attorneys asked a compound question that took more than 1 page of the transcript, my father said "Can you repeat the question" which was good enough to get me to laugh, then after the question was repeated verbatim he answered "No". I asked him about it and he said he was taking notes during the question so he could reasonably answer correctly as succinctly as possible.
@@KameraShy As a witness you are under the obligation to tell the truth as you know it. If you feel that a question is confusing or being asked in a way that might engender a misleading answer, you are permitted to ask the judge if you canhave the question clarified. The judge can then either ask counsel to clarify the question, or tell you that you should answer the question as it was asked, to the best of your ability.
@@DontCryAboutIt But I didn't have an attorney, the State of Michigan did. I was merely a witness and I don't believe that the prosecutor owes and duty to me, only to the people of the State of Michigan.
As a learning professional, I admire your clarity and your technique. Your experience as a teacher shines through. Thank you so much for this explanation.
@@mvpfocus I have an M.Ed. in Instructional Design and Adult Education. I have 25 years experience creating and facilitating learning activities. I hope this helps.
Timestamps: Compound Questions--2:15 Leading Questions--3:29 Asked & Answered--5:10 Calls for Opinion by Non-Expert--6:44 Calls for Speculation--9:26 Hearsay--15:29 Not Hearsay (starts at) 17:25
You Steve are a Awesome Law Teacher !!!! I would take a class by you anytime ! Thankyou for instructing us non lawyers on the nuts and bolts of “ objections “ at trial ! I find it so fascinating ! 🙏🏼
It’s funny because it appears Mr. Depp has become more of an expert on hearsay rules than the opposing counsel. There are some great clips of him saying something and then waiting for the objection, which was quite funny to see.
My dad, a physician, had a patient who was plaintiff in a personal-injury case. After testifying as an expert medical witness, the defendant's attorney, I assume working for some insurance company, asked him, in an unctuous, condescending tone, "Tell us, doctor, how much are you charging for your testimony today?" The sneer was intended to rattle the witness and create some doubt in the minds of the jury, the idea being that the witness was bought. But that does not work with my dad, who does not much like lawyers (he loathes them all) and disliked this particular one immensely. So dad snapped back: "Well, I don't know, I have not compiled my bill yet; but whatever it is, it is going to be a heck of a lot less than YOUR bill!" There was this stunned silence, and the lawyer crept back [actually, crapped back] to his desk. No further questions!
As they say "never ask a question you don't know the answer to" meaning don't ask a question that can be answered that hurts you. More often then not the only way to ask questions in court is to elicit a yes or no answer. The lawyer supplies the details.
@@Mark-gg6iy a lawyer can do virtually anything in the courtroom if the other side doesn't object. I meant, "if opposing counsel objects to you leading your own witness, it will be sustained. Also, the jury will likely not take kindly to your putting words in the mouth of a friendly witness." And yes, you can sometimes get consent to treat someone that you've brought in under subpoena as a hostile witness, but that's relatively rare.
I would just like to add that the hard part, especially when you are the only attorney on your side, is to keep up with the objections. You are taking notes for your cross, thinking about the next witness, AND have to make sure you keep on top of objectionable evidence. That is why litigation attorneys get the big bucks.
I learned all of this during my 20 years of Law & Order school, but it was presented very well here. Edit: Vin Scully _always_ tells the truth and in no universe is anything he says hearsay.
Both Scully's "The only question was...could he make it around the bases unassisted" and Jack Buck's "I don't believe what I just saw!" are two of the best baseball calls ever, and they happened on the same play. (For those who are young enough that they haven't seen Gibson's HR in the 1988 WS, it was Gibson's only appearance in the series, and he hit it all with his arms. His legs were so shot he was having a hard time walking, much less running. If he hadn't hit it out, it wouldn't have mattered where he hit it, they'd have thrown him out at first.)
Watching Kirk Gibson's World Series home run with Vin Scully's epic play by play from start to finish, and hearing the neighborhood go bonkers in my hometown of L.A. was my experience watching sports history.
Now, during the Depp defamation trial, I've heard attorneys object to relevance. What's the deal with those objections, and why didn't you mention them? And I would love to see a follow up video about admissibility criteria.
I would love to see a whole law class from Steve. I hope never to set foot inside a courtroom (again), but if I did, it would be less scary if I knew what was going on.
Yes, I was the only witness to a red light accident. I even predicted it five seconds before it happened when I was stopped at the red light and saw the speeding vehicle behind me speeding up more. There was no yellow. I said, "He's going to run this red light," to the passenger. And so he did. I was called in to court. The person who ran the light wasn't in court!!! There was an attorney there for cross examination on his behalf? They wanted to make it the fault of the person who was turning right, stating that they turned wide, so also was at fault. I told them the person ran the red light, and that I did not remember it that way. I'm sure the victim was happy I left my name and contact info, but I also missed work and was not paid.
My favorite objection from the past few months happened in the Wisconsin v. Rittenhouse trial. Prosecutor Binger asked Rittenhouse on cross-examination why he had waited until now to tell his story. Defense counsel Richards objected, the jury was sent into a holding room, and the issue was addressed. Binger AGAIN made reference to Rittenhouse's post-arrest silence while also trying to introduce evidence that was ruled inadmissible.
IMO, a prosecutor attempting to get inadmissible evidence into a trial after that evidence has already been ruled inadmissible should lead to an instant mistrial and charges dismissed with prejudice (the one in the Roger Clemens trial was especially egregious).
@@karlrovey This wasn't the first incident that prompted the defense to move for a mistrial with prejudice, nor was it the last. If the jury had convicted on any count in the indictment, there would have been a full hearing on the defense's motions because of the egregious misconduct by the state.
@@arinerm1331 In the Clemens trial, the judge had ruled an interview with Clemens's former teammate was inadmissible prior to the trial. The prosecutor tried to quote it on one of the first days of the trail. There was an objection, the defense requested a mistrial ("you can't unring the bell"), and the judge declared a mistrial.
The judge this week reminded the parties they have 50 hours each to babble and then they will be cut off mid witness. Do objections count as babble time?
I am not a lawyer, but are you suggesting that attorneys should not be permitted to object, or should only be allowed to object so many times? That would lead to horrendous abuses.
Thanks so much for this. It was a very clear explanation for us non-lawyers. I always found it weird that a person could testify to what they saw, but not to what they heard. Now I see that they can testify to some things they heard depending on the situation.
I was in court a few months ago and the plaintiff's lawyer kept asking me the same question throughout to me. I had 2 horrible lawyers that never objected to anything. Finally, the judge stepped in and told the lawyer, asked, and answered 3 different times. He finally stopped asking any more questions and I was released from the stand.
My father got out of a speeding ticket with his expert knowledge back in the 80's. The judge asked him why he was contesting the ticket. He responded with the fact that it was overcast on the day he received the ticket. He claimed that the officer's radar gun misread his speed. The judge asked him how that was possible to which my father explained about Radar cloud refraction. Basically the way a radar gun works is the stationary operator aims it at a moving target, he activates it and it releases two pulses which bounce off the target and return to the unit. With the fixed time interval between pulses, the computer inside the unit can calculate the velocity the target was traveling. If one of those two pulses bounced off a cloud, the distance would have been greater and hence the speed higher. When my father explained this phenomenon, the judge asked him where he came up with this. My father explained that he worked for Raytheon teaching RADAR to the USAF. Obviously the ticket was tossed.
Always remember an older guy I knew when I was younger telling me about his day on the witness stand about a brawl. Prosecutor said so these were the men you saw finding. No was his answer, but I have your statement, no was still the answer. Prosecutor soon cottoned on and pointed to each person saying was this one of the guys you saw fighting. Be very careful what you say on the stand he only saw 2 of the 4 defendants fighting not them all
Thanks for getting into the weeds on this one. Knowledge is the greatest power and knowing something about this stuff may well save someone life long grief.
I once testified as a fact witness and expert witness in one. It was in front of a magistrate over a non-working camcorder. I gave an estimate for repairing it (to the plaintiff/customer), then got a call (from the defendant apparently) asking me if it could have been damaged from being dropped. Since it only needed capacitors replaced, I said no, it had no physical damage. Capacitors leak over time from use and heat. Next thing I know I got a subpoena to testify over it. The camcorder owner was suing their friend over the camcorder repair since they had lent it to them before it stopped working. They even said they saw them drop it at the wedding they used it at. I testified that I had seen dozens of camcorders that has been dropped and they all had cracked plastic and bent metal frame parts, and the camcorder in question had no such damage.
So, if a witness is asked about reckless driving, that calls for speculation. In other words, we cannot trust the witness to know what reckless driving is. On the other hand, if that same person were cited FOR reckless driving, we presume he knows what reckless driving is, since ignorance of the law is no excuse. In other words, we treat the defendant here as if he is non-ignorant. From which I conclude that the law presumes everyone is knowledgeable until they become a witness. Then we presume they are idiots.
Mr. Lehto, Really enjoy listening to your case experiences, knowledge of the Courts, and of course, Michigan. You have amazing stories of many Courtrooms, Judges, Clients, and personal battles. I am certain many - Many other's are feeling it too. Thank you for sharing this most interesting experience and Cases (in general of course. Please keep'em coming. Thanks.
This is one of the best videos you've ever made. You explained a ton of 'legal speak' stuff us non-legal people are interested in, but don't understand.
This was a fascinating episode! The way you sprinkle in humor with the information really makes the subject matter pop. I'd consider studying to become a lawyer if I knew the professors were as good at communicating as you 😅
Steve, As a student of the Bible, I find it rather fascinating that the scenarios which you are describing are very similar...and in some examples, apples to apples descriptions of some of the methods used by *Christian apologists* when studying ancient literature, such as ancient copies of the Bible ( the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) in order to establish or reject their authenticity...as these are the very same methods used by historians.
The "excited utterance" thing is great for me to learn. I have a VERY twisted sense of humor, especially in response to stressful situations. If a meteorite hit my car, my instinctual reaction would be to say something inappropriate (and untrue) like "Oh no! I had someone tied up in the trunk!"
I don't want to be a lawyer, but I think 'The Law' is very interesting. The ins-and-outs fascinate me. This is a really good video and you made it easy to follow along.
I was ticketed for speeding. I pled (pleaded?) not guilty. At trial the prosecuting attorney tried to get radar into evidence. I objected and the judge asked me to state the basis for my objection. I said "There is no proper foundation." The judge said "Fine - that's sustained." The PA asked the officer about when the radar unit was tested and he said he didn't know but he knows that it is tested from time to time. I was found not guilty.
Steve, your "hearsay" description was very informative. I'm a simple person. For all the exceptions you described, it sounds to me like hearsay is admissible if there is an overwhelming chance that the other person (if questioned) would not correct the testimony, and inadmissible otherwise.
Love your legal videos! Does the judge point out an objection if the lawyer misses it or does the judge allow the objectionable statement to pass without comment?
The judge lets it pass. It's not their job to advocate for a defendant or plaintiff. I have seen judges remark to a non-lawyer representing themselves about the possibility to object but done only once and as a heads-up, they are doing a poor job. btw...I am a layman. If I'm incorrect bring it on.
I think that a judge might -- might -- pause and ask, "do you want to object?" if he or she were concerned that not doing so might result in reversible error -- That is, an improper event that could cause the results of the trial to be overturned on appeal. I'm not a lawyer and did not stay at a holiday inn last night.
@@WhereWhatHuh I had a business law class wehre a judge was asked pretty much that question. His response was on the order of he couldn't directly enter an objection, but there were plenty of times when he looked opposing counsel in the eyes to let them know he thought they should.
AS to a witness being unavailable to testify, I was once a juror in a case involveing a rather mundane slip and fall. The kicker was that it happend on the front steps of a church, and one of the key witnesses was, at time of trial, literally on a two-year missionary trip to the jungles of Borneo. His sworn declaration and deposition were read into the record as testimony.
Objections are huge in a courtroom. It would have been great to have you as a mentor or teacher in 2019. It would have helped me so much. Thanks for sharing ! #outlaws4justice#louisiana#balancingjusticeinlouisian#silbya
I found it infuriating that in Johnny Depp’s trial when the defense attorney had asked him 4 times if that was his signature at the bottom of the document that his attorney’s didn’t object under “asked and answered”. Most people might recall that the final time Amber’s attorney asked it, Johnny responded with something to the effect of, “…is this the same document I signed 3 times before?”
While you have the ability to object it's occasionally preferable not to. In the incident you mentioned ignorng it made it seem like the attorney was wasting time, being pedantic, and overly aggressive.
Hello Mr Lehto, Great show as usual. And you kept it brief and concise. Bahahahha! Actually, I liked it a lot. Thanks for a great description of a complex subject. Yu Da Meng! Cheers Boots Langley La Mesa, Ca
I paralegal in military law defense. We had a case where someone told our client something derogatory about a commanding officer. Our client said that made the CO unfit to command. Our client was charged with disrespecting the CO. We wanted our client's recollection of the rumor spreaders comments admitted though they would normally be hearsay bc without those comments, our client would not have reacted as he did. Moreover, the nature of the conduct described in the rumors was egregious enough to allow for an affirmative defense that the officer forfeited due respect. It would have been an interesting fight but we never got that far because we got our client into a legal safe haven. ETA: the original rumor spreader was no longer in the service, so, was not available to be called.
Great video easy for even a novice to have an understanding and appreciation of the law. Quite helpful would love to see more similar topics and themes.
I remember something about a case where the defendant was getting really frustrated with his attorney, who seemed inclined to just sit silently for the entire trial. The defendant (who was not ignorant of the law by any means) finally stood up in court and yelled at his attorney "Aren't you going to object to ANYTHING?" IIRC the Defendant was able to get a different attorney.
Steve, what really irks me is watching a witness get badgered over YES and NO answers only. Could the witness remind the court that they swore to tell the WHOLE TRUTH? YES and NO is not the whole truth and the only person that knows that is the witness.
Steve I have loved learning this kind of stuff since I saw a episode on court TV decades ago about Fry frey ( or how ever its spelled) test. I would greatly enjoy more episodes like this 1. I am not a lawyer want to be just a humble mechanic.
Good grief, a lawyer has to recognize instantly that an objectional event has ocured to declare one and a judge has to immediately decide whether said objection is admissable.
"I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."
The Depp v Heard trial was the single greatest example of a case where you go into it absolutely positive that the villain is on one side of the courtroom, and by the end you're absolutely certain the villain is on the other side of the courtroom.
Steve, could you also address circumstances where witnesses are not permitted to complete their answers. You often see instances where a witness or defendant says “yes, but” and is cut off by the attorney as the full answer doesn’t serve their strategy!
That summary of why speculation is inadmissible sounds almost exactly like the argument I'm constantly making on Quora while dismissing the possibility of free will: essentially, anything that is stated in the contrary-to-fact subjunctive mood is describing an alternative universe. I never expected to see it come up in a legal setting.
I hadn't heard of the compound question objection before, but it's something that has driven me crazy in grading composition essays (and watching Congressional proceedings).
Many years ago, my [now] late husband, who was a trial attorney, used to ‘get on me’ from time to time. Somewhere along the line, I’d learned to set a hard line with ‘asked and answered.’ Effective! 😂
Hey Steve, thanks for the fun video. It leads to a bit of a question though: I've seen in other videos (from Leonard French IIRC) that videos from CCTV, bodycameras, and audio recordings technically constitute "hearsay". Is this covered by the same part of the rule that you discussed with the baseball announcer, or do those kinds of recordings have their own exception? I suppose it's probably different in every state, but I'm interested to hear about how it's handled in Michigan. Thanks again for the good times.
@@wingracer1614 That's not what I mean. My understanding is that all recordings constitute hearsay, because they aren't first-party accounts of the events. What I've seen in other videos is that under the hearsay rules for each state (and for the feds), recordings are a form of hearsay evidence which is explicitly allowed as long as they are relevant to the case. Those videos have also said that this is so irrespective of the content of the video. However, a video of someone saying that they hear someone else say something may still be rejected because the content doesn't have a strong enough factual basis to be relevant to the case, or something like that. One of the reasons I asked Steve to talk about it is that he's pretty good at explaining stuff like that (actually knowing the information from firsthand experience goes a long way, I suspect). Here's to hopin'. :)
