means rather than simply asking for the facts of what
actually happened.
Why You Should Learn Common Objections
in Court
Courtroom objections are an essential component of
trial. Lack of experience with courtroom objections could
destroy your chances of winning your case. You don't
want to give your opponent in court free rein to introduce
improper evidence (or ask inappropriate questions of
witnesses).
Plus, if you want introduce valid evidence or testimony
— and your opponent keeps objecting because you
don't know how to handle common objections in court —
you'll never have the chance to introduce important
evidence supporting your version of the facts to the
judge or jury.
Mastering common objections in court is as much a skill
as it is an art. This means that you CAN learn how to:
 Identify when you should object to testimony from
a witness and when you should object to
inappropriate questioning by the opposing attorney;
 Properly address the judge and state your
objections in a clear, concise and accurate way;
 Refocus your line of questioning when the judge
sustains an objection from the opposing attorney so
you can get your testimony or evidence seen and
considered by the jury.
In this article, we'll provide a list of objections that you
should try to master before your trial date. And if your
trial is tomorrow — you might want to pull an all-nighter.
5 Types of Objections You’ll Likely Encounter in
Court
There is a high probability that you will encounter these
five common evidentiary objections in court. Reading
through this list of objections will help you learn how and
when to object — and how to handle objections by the
opposing attorney.
 You'll be able to identify if your opponent is doing
something objectionable — so you can make a
timely objection; and
 You will be able to form a strategy to recover from
the objections of the opposing attorney (sustained
by the judge) relating to these five common
objections;
 We also provide you with objections in
court examples so you can think through the
process.
1. Objection: Argumentative
When you hear the words, "Objection! Argumentative,"
you might think it means the attorney is accusing you of
arguing. But that's likely not the case.
Argumentative is a legal term that means something
similar to "drawing conclusions." For the sake of
simplicity, we'll refer to them as
an argumentative objection.
That means if you hear an argumentative objection,
the questioner (attorney or self-represented party) is
likely trying to offer a conclusion of what the evidence
It is the jury's responsibility to decide whether to believe
or find any testimony or evidence credible or
persuasive. During the case-in-chief (includes
questioning of witnesses), the witnesses, attorneys,
self-represented parties, defendants, and plaintiffs are
only allowed to recite the facts, not draw conclusions
about the facts (until closing arguments). To do so is
argumentative.
Generally, a party in a lawsuit is only allowed to "argue"
the facts of the case (i.e., draw conclusions) in closing
arguments. Learn about trial basics here.
Argumentative objections are often made when the
questions directed to the witness attempt to influence
the witness' testimony by inserting the attorney's (or
self-represented party's) interpretation of the evidence
into the question.
Sample Argumentative Objection
Here is an example of an argumentative objection to
help you see how it might work in a courtroom:
Attorney: How often did you get your brakes checked
prior to the accident?
Witness: Twice a week.
Attorney: You expect this jury to believe that you got
under your car, twice a week, every week, to check your
brakes?
Self-represented Party: Objection! Argumentative.
Judge: Sustained.
You'll notice the words: "You expect this jury to
believe…." Those words tip you off that the question is
argumentative (and objectionable) because the attorney
is stating what the jury should be expected to believe
about something. Plus, the attorney takes the testimony
beyond what the witness actually said.
The witness never said he got under the car twice a
week — only that someone checked the brakes twice a
week.
If you'd like additional tips on how to identify questions
that may be objectionable as argumentative, you can
check out Trial Objections 101: Making and
Responding to Objections.
2. Objection: Calls for Speculation
Speculation is a legal basis for objecting to witness
testimony on grounds similar to
the argumentative objection — because the evidence
is not considered reliable or factual. A witness'
testimony is limited to their personal knowledge of
events (estimating is allowed, but most opinions are
not). Speculating is even worse. It's akin to guessing —
and it's not permitted.
We certainly wouldn't want a jury to decide a case based
upon someone's guess. That's a primary reason we
have rules of evidence: to establish a fair trial that is
based on facts, not speculation. Learn more about rules
of evidence (the backbone of evidentiary objections).
Lay witnesses (i.e., non-experts) may testify as to their
personal knowledge in a case. But generally, they are
not permitted to testify as to matters outside their first -
hand knowledge.
A common reason for objections that call for speculation
(or speculation objections) in court is when a party
asks a witness to interpret someone else’s state of mind.
No one can read another's mind.
Sample Objection for Speculation #1
Here is a specific example of a speculation objection
so you can see how it might occur in a court of law:
Witness: A man with a glorious ponytail came in and
bought a newspaper with his credit card.
Attorney: Why did the man use his credit card instead
of paying with cash?
Self-Represented Party: Objection. Calls for
speculation.
Judge: Sustained.
Attorney: Why did the man have a ponytail?
Self-Represented Party: Objection, calls for
speculation — and irrelevant.
Judge: Sustained. Counsel, move on.
Sometimes courtroom objections based on speculation
can be overcome by rewording a question, particularly
in state of mind conclusions. A witness may not testify
to a state of mind, but they can testify to what they saw.
Sample Objection for Speculation #2
Here is a second example of a speculation objection
where the party is able to reword a question to get the
desired testimony.
Self-Represented Party: Was the man with the ponytail
thinking about killing the cashier for not refunding his
money?
Attorney: Objection! Calls for speculation.
Judge: Sustained.
Self-Represented Party: What did the man with the
ponytail do when the cashier did not refund his money
for the newspaper?
Witness: His whole body tensed up, he slammed his fist
on the counter, and raised his voice saying, "I'm not
going to forget your face."
3. Assumes Facts Not in Evidence Objections
Evidentiary objections such as assumes facts not in
evidence are closely related to foundation objections
(which we will discuss in number 4).
If a question references a fact that has not yet been
presented or accepted as evidence, it can be objected
to on that basis — because it assumes a fact that has
not been established.
Sample Assumes Facts Not in Evidence Objection
Attorney: Where were you at the time of the accident?
Witness: I was standing at the bus stop right near the
southeast corner of the intersection of Main Street and
7th Avenue.
Attorney: What did the driver of the black van throw out
of the window?
Self-Represented Party: Objection. The question
assumes facts not in evidence. And it’s a leading
question.
Judge: Sustained.
Here, there was no testimony prior to this question that:
(1) there was a black van, (2) the witness could see the
driver, or that (3) the witness saw the driver throwing
something out of the window.
When you are questioning a witness and your opponent
objects to your question because it assumes facts not in
evidence, it is usually a simple problem to fix.
We thoroughly discuss the solution in Trial Objections
101: Making and Responding to Objections.
Plus, below, we've provided an example of one way to
get back on track. See example two
of foundation objections (objections that are made
because a question lacks foundation).
4. Foundation Objections
As mentioned above, foundation objections are related
to assumes facts not in evidence objections.
A common lack of foundation objection occurs when a
party asks a question, but has not shown the court why
the witness is qualified to answer the question. Basic
foundations that need to be established before the
question is permissible might include personal
knowledge and familiarity with the topic.
Lack of foundation objections can occur when the
examining attorney is going too fast and not asking
preliminary questions to demonstrate the witness’
familiarity with the facts.
Example #1 of Foundation Objections
Here is a sample foundation objection dialogue that
might happen at trial:
Attorney: Are you a tennis player?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney: What percentage of a tennis ball is made of
rubber?
Self-Represented Party: Objection. Lacks foundation.
Judge: Sustained.
In this lack of foundation example, there was no prior
testimony establishing that (1) rubber is used in the
production of tennis balls; or (2) that the witness has any
knowledge regarding the manufacturing or composition
of tennis balls.
Why would he, based on what you have just read? All
we know is that the witness hits tennis balls —
not manufactures them.
testimony that goes beyond the scope of what you
asked them.
It's critical to make these kinds of courtroom objections
quickly because the witness may inadvertently (or
intentionally) say something that is harmful to your case.
Thankfully, with a little skill, you can have harmful
testimony stricken from the record — you can watch an
example in Trial Objections 101.
Sample Non-Responsive Objection

The attorney had not yet sufficiently laid a foundation for Here is an example of a non-responsive objection:
the question (in other words, she was going too fast in
her line of questions). Attorney: In what year did you meet Bozo?

Example #2 of Foundation Objections
Now, let’s assume that the attorney resumes her line of
questioning to lay a proper foundation.
Attorney: Do you know what tennis balls are made of?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney: How do you know that?
Witness: We’ve known each other since we were
students at clown school. A lot of people don’t know that
Bozo was quite the ladies’ man . . . anyway, when he
got back from his second tour in Afghanistan, after his
divorce, I . . .
Self-Represented Party: Objection. Non-responsive.
Judge: Sustained. Mr. Pennywise, please answer the
question.

Witness: Before retiring in April, I worked as a floor
supervisor at a tennis ball factory for 20 years.
Attorney: As part of your duties as a floor supervisor,
were you involved in supervising the manufacture of
tennis balls?
Witness: Yes.
Witness: Huh? What was the question?
Attorney: How long have you known Bozo?
Witness: 12 years . . . I’ve known him since the very
day he won his third-straight hog-wrestling contest, and
I’m telling you, no way Bozo is guilty of any of these
charges . . .

Attorney: Did you become familiar with the materials Self-Represented Party: Objection. Non-responsive.
used to manufacture tennis balls?
Judge: Sustained.
Witness: Yes.

Attorney: What materials are used to manufacture

tennis balls?

Witness: Mainly rubber, with some wool.

Attorney: What percentage of a tennis ball is made of

rubber?

Witness: I’d say about 85-90%.

See how she slowed down. Asked the right questions.

And laid the legal foundation to get the testimony she
needed in her case.

When your opponent objects for lack of foundation, DO

NOT PANIC!

Just back up and ask the necessary foundational

questions.

5. Objection Non-Responsive
The non-responsive objection is a common objection
used in court when a witness is not responding properly
to questions asked under oath. Using this evidentiary
objection is crucial when you have a witness who skirts
around your question, rambles on and on, or gives