The words “I object” should be passe. The availability of pre-trial motions in limine, as guaranteed by FRE 103, should ensure that evidentiary issues are thoughtfully considered and resolved before trial begins. But time constraints or unexpected developments may require a time-of-trial challenge to the admission of evidence, so knowing the “why” and “how” of objecting is essential. And, as is developed below, a mere “I object” may serve no legal or practical end.
The Hollywood lawyer – whether Gregory Peck, Kate Hepburn, Paul Newman or Denzel Washington – never speaks from notes. And Cousin Vinny, although he never had to give a closing, certainly had no paper in hand when he delivered his inimitable opening statement of “everything that guy said is [expletive deleted].” But it is the rare lawyer who has spoken without notes and then not thought “darn, I wish I’d remembered to say that.” Whatever Hollywood and television have done to shape audience perceptions, there is no reason to conclude that audience expectations are that an attorney will never use notes (except in student mock trial competitions), or that an attorney who does so somehow has diminished credibility or effectiveness. Given the edict that preparation is key to success in advocacy, or as words attributed to Abraham Lincoln explain, “Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe,” reliance on memory, that incredibly faulty and distractible tool, is a less than desirable approach. Consider this …
The Ashley Madison website self-describes as “the most famous name in infidelity and married dating.” https://www.ashleymadison.com/ (last visited August 27, 2015). The hacking of the website resulted in the release of the names of tens of millions of subscribers – individuals who joined the website with the ability and apparently the intent to seek out a partner for an adulterous encounter, be it one-time or ongoing. And if one of those individuals were to now be a witness in a trial, would the act of registering an interest in or seeking out an adulterous relationship be admissible as an attack on credibility? To answer the question requires a parsing of the language, theoretical underpinnings and application of Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b). Before discussing the Rule, practitioners need to be chided for its apparent underuse. Available in many jurisdictions [Pennsylvania being a notable exception] as a tool for attacking witness credibility, its limited role in the litigator’s toolkit is confirmed in evidence lectures, when practicing lawyers and judges show unfamiliarity with the rule; and arguably …
I have been fortunate to work with many different social justice organizations in my short career, but some of the experiences that have been most dear to me are those that I have had while working with people who are charged with crimes, people who are incarcerated, and people who live with criminal records. I co-founded and currently chair the Temple National Lawyers Guild (NLG) Expungement Project. I coordinate with Community Legal Services of Philadelphia (CLS) to staff intake clinics throughout the city. With my student committee, I recruit, train, and organize law student volunteers to assist the advocates from CLS with their criminal record expungement cases. I also serve as an external coordinator for the Restorative Justice Project at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) at Graterford. In this role, I partner with Haverford College students, faculty, staff, and a committee of brilliant men who are incarcerated at SCI-Graterford. I coordinate volunteers on the “outside,” serve as a liaison between Graterford and the Pennsylvania Office of the Victim Advocate (OVA), and participate in two-day and …
For forty-plus years, learning the art of trial advocacy has included the obligatory viewing of a tape of Irving Younger’s “10 Commandments of Cross-Examination” lecture. And every lawyer who has ventured into the courtroom has seen – if not personally experienced – the dire consequences when a commandment is violated, in particular when the cross-examiner asks the one question too many or inquires about a subject where the answer is not already known. Younger himself acknowledged that the Commandments he posited were meant to be broken by masters of the craft, but urged that adherence to them ensured a safe, productive cross. And the latter point can’t be denied. Were every cross-examiner to follow Younger’s directives, there would be less error in courtroom proceedings. But are there more or different Commandments? Did Younger’s approach leave gaps? The answer to both questions is “yes.” Let’s first recall the 10 that Younger preached. They are: Be brief Use plain words Ask only leading questions Be prepared Listen Don’t get into a quarrel Avoid repetition Disallow witness explanations …
Temple University Beasley School of Law
1719 North Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122
(215) 204-7861
© 2025 Temple University Beasley School of Law.
