Objection - Withdrawn!

[@The_Greebler]

You forgot the third reason: opposing counsels face gets really red and it's funny

[@unknowngamer37415]

😂

[@discordchaos7175]

Amber heards team objection hear say

[@empty_thesaurus]

​@@discordchaos7175 their default voice line lmao

[@bob89377]

Lol nah getting objected to is part of a lawyers training

[@turtlesarecool]

Objection it's not funny to make fun of people😡😡😡

[@fakjbf3129]

When I was on a jury the case was about a guy possessing a firearm when he had an injunction against doing so. At the start of the trial they made a big show about how the reason for the injunction was irrelevant so no one was allowed to discuss it. First witness for the prosecution was a police officer and during his testimony he said “When applying for the warrant to search the house we saw that the defendant has an injunction against possessing firearms due to a domestic violence charge” and the judge literally facepalmed.

[@thomaslacroix6011]

Yeah, I can see why that would introduce prejudice. The goal of not saying why is because jurors should not decide the merit of the case based on the character of the defendant unless it's absolutely necessary.

[@sweatergod4755]

​@@thomaslacroix6011Can you elaborate? Is the cause for the injunction not relevant, or the fact the person has an injunction which I thought is a fact and should be relevant

[@thomaslacroix6011]

@@sweatergod4755 if the guy has an injunction against possessing a firearm and possess a firearm, the only thing the prosecution has to prove is that he was in possession of a firearm. The only thing the jury should worry about is if the police has done the required steps to prove that the correct procedures were followed to establish that fact. The merit of the injunction is not at play in that hearing. The merit of the injunction was already proven when the injunction was ordered, and the correct process to appeal the merit of the injunction is by appealing the injunction itself. Therefore, by informing the jury on the reason behind the injunction, the jury might be convinced to convict not because the police has proven he possessed a firearm, but because he's a piece shit that deserves to be in prison anyway. Now, if he broke the injunction, and the injunction is later overturned because he was falsely accused, he might have grounds to appeal the sentence he got for breaking the injunction, because the injunctions was made on false premises. No idea if that's actually true, but it very well could be.

[@dojelnotmyrealname4018]

@@sweatergod4755 The jury is there to decide the facts, not the law. So why the injunction was there is not relevant to whether or not the defendant broke it. He could be a saint and still have had a gun when he shouldn't have had, and vice versa.

[@wnsjimbo2863]

​@@dojelnotmyrealname4018wrong Jury decides facts AND law (jury nullification)

[@Paul-sj5db]

I've been on a jury and as a result I don't trust juries. One head teacher said the co-defendants were guilty because they were laughing and smiling when we first entered the courtroom. She had not heard one single piece of evidence and had already made up her mind.

[@thebananamonk]

Why didn't you report that?

[@Paul-sj5db]

@@thebananamonk Because what happens in the jury room has to stay in the jury room. It's the UK and the rules are different.

[@Vadim-qy4jo]

​@@Paul-sj5db careful.. the UK likes to prosecute people who say stuff online

[@MN-Hillbilly]

@@Paul-sj5db Interesting, in the US we are instructed not to discuss the case until after both sides are finished. We played card games when waiting. Then when the deliberation started I learned I was in the room with 11 of the dumbest people in the state.

[@shiranuithewolf8559]

@@MN-HillbillyMost of the time dumb people get picked because the smart people find a way to be biased as possible as to not be seated. I’ve been called twice and the only thought on my mind was “What’s the easiest way to get out of this”

[@Rutoks]

But do you slam the desk and point with your finger when yelling “OBJECTION!”?

[@hdonahue01]

When I was young, I wanted to be a lawyer because of Ace Attorney. When I found out I wouldn’t get to slam the desk, point my finger, and yell objection, I changed my mind. Now I’m a film student. So I get to yell “ACTION!” instead.

[@TheBrandoGR]

@@hdonahue01 Honestly probably the best reason to get into an industry tbh.

[@agentdopkant]

Only if the prosecution shakes his head and taps his hand against a packet of documents first

[@SlimThrull]

I did. Then the bailiff tackled me.

[@patrickrobertshaw7020]

YOU WOULD

[@carterrrrrrr]

could you not make an impactful statement knowing that it would be objected to but that the jury wouldn’t be able to truly put that aside in deliberation? could that be grounds for a mistrial?

[@MikeRafiLawyer]

Yes, mistrial

[@puernatura8998]

That is the textbook definition of a mistrial. If you, as a lawyer, do that repeatedly, you will be disbarred.

[@dojelnotmyrealname4018]

Asside from mistrial, that's also a really good way to get disbarred.

[@jplayzow]

​@mercx007You can do anything once. If you do it you face consequences that just might not rise to disbarment

[@MikeRafiLawyer]

You will not be disbarred. You will likely be paying a fine because you’ll be held in contempt if it’s willful. But you will not be disbarred.

[@nuggetsfan1212]

I represented myself in traffic court and when the officer was testifying I said object and the whole courtroom froze and the judge explained it wasn’t something I could object. Still beat the case and got to say “Objection!” In a court of law. Highlight of my college life

[@YourMama_420]

& yet…. I feel 2nd hand embarrassment 😂. But I’m glad you got your day lol

[@user-pampam70634]

Saying "Objection" during court may not have been on your bucket list, but you could out it in there anyway.

[@laytonjr6601]

I'm guessing you didn't win your case if you represented yourself without knowing the law

[@nuggetsfan1212]

@@laytonjr6601I did win and got the ticket thrown out. Don’t have to prove innocence. Just enough reasonable doubt.

[@GabrielAKAFinn]

@@laytonjr6601 It's traffic court, not phoenix wright. No one cares about self-rep if the consequence of losing is 150 dollar fine.

[@IlIlIlIlIlIlIlIl-v9h]

If it goes into a jury’s ears, even if the judge says don’t consider it, they’re considering it. They’re humans.

[@brandonn6099]

That really depends on what was said. I think most jurors could be convinced to ignore something that is truly irrelevant to the case. But for other things, you're absolutely right.

[@JuneNafziger]

Perhaps subconsciously but when discussing it with their fellow jurors they should hopefully check each other on that if it even gets brought up, and it might just not even get brought up.

[@doloreschansey9556]

Not always.

[@DrMattHH]

​@@JuneNafziger It doesn't matter if it doesn't get brought up. It might even be worse if it doesn't get brought up. Because it IS part of your subconscious consideration.

[@swe872]

@@brandonn6099 Its not just that, it makes so the lawyer can not further go into that argumental line

[@ExhaustedScarf]

There’s something wildly excellent about a lawyer saying “I’m gonna look at you fuckers”

[@neithvoid]

sound like me after seeing my friends do a dumb thing

[@minmax9163]

I'm not sure what material that tie is made of, but whomever put it on you better have said "That's not going anywhere."

[@JeremysJourneys1]

This is the most Midwestern dad thing ever

[@bobbirdsong6825]

Lol it does look like a nylon strap. It’s a knit tie made on a sock knitting machine, probably made of silk if he’s not cheap, or polyester if he is

[@Blueee51]

I could hear "thats not going anywhere" vividly in my dads voice. hes in virginia and im in kansas lol

[@minmax9163]

@Blueee51 As someone who has visited Virginia and lived in Kansas, my condolences.

[@Fanta....]

Instructions unclear, death penalty.

[@pupperTy928]

You’re the best lawyer on KZbin. Thank you for being real and honest.

[@CatPope1935]

One of the best

[@fakjbf3129]

I like Steve Lehto more simply because he goes more in depth into the various legal issues around current news stories.

[@magicsforce]

@lenonard finch, runkel of the Bailey, attroney Tom, and legal bytes has entered the chat

[@jocelyndaoust3700]

Hes useless

[@Shun_Akiyama28]

​@@jocelyndaoust3700He's*

[@PvblivsAelivs]

"Don't consider it" is equivalent to "pretend you didn't hear it."

[@chase_birdeevogel4784]

It's more like "yeah we know what they said but it isn't relevant to the matter at hand and is a completely separate issue and we're not here to deal with it right now so be patient and we'll hopefully get to it when we get to it"

[@PvblivsAelivs]

@@chase_birdeevogel4784 "It's more like 'yeah we know what they said but it isn't relevant to the matter at hand and is a completely separate issue and we're not here to deal with it right now so be patient and we'll hopefully get to it when we get to it'" Oh, far from it. It can be a case of someone bragging that he is going to lie on the stand and there is nothing you can do about it and then objecting when you try to present the recording in court. Of course, in such an extreme case, the judge is likely to declare a mistrial, because the jury is going to know it is relevant.

[@chase_birdeevogel4784]

@PvblivsAelivs I mean, yeah, that's technically plausible, but for the vast majority of cases, it's not going to be the issue. Good point, though.

[@PointsofData]

​​@@PvblivsAelivs You're overthinking this and have watched too many courtroom shows. An objection being upheld tells the jury "the lawyer objecting has brought up a good point, please do not consider that information in your deliberations." I listen to criminal trials sometimes, in the background, and no objection is ever as dramatic as you make them out to be. It's mostly badgering the witness or "that information isn't relevant" about like...questions about a receipt. Evidence itself must be approved before the trial, you're not allowed to just show up with new evidence unless you have a good reason for not filing it earlier.

[@__nog642]

There's a slight difference. I guess the idea is that if the jury is deliberating and someone says "what about x?" then another juror can be like "they told us not to consider that"

[@mustachecrab9669]

One of the many reasons that the justice system feels like an unfair mess. Evidence, defence, accusations, it should come as paperwork, not a man emotionally manipulating the judge and jury, acting should not play a role here, hard facts and calculated decisions are the way to real justice, not a theater play where you convince an audience that you're right.

[@kainxjm]

That requires starting an entirely new country. It’s incompatible with an adversarial, common law system.

[@Lordzelot666]

It's crazy that being a skilled liar is a better option than being innocent. How many guilty walk free because they can afford to have someone plan their defense before they do the crime.

[@shiranuithewolf8559]

The justice system is messed up. A juror could walk into a court room, and immediately be biased towards one side based on something as simple as the physical attractiveness of either side. Most jurors are not that smart, all the smart people used their intelligence to find a way out of being seated on a jury

[@EhurtAfy]

Yeah and the worst for me is how testimony is considered to be such strong evidence, if you get two people willing to provide testimony, you could put almost anybody in jail unless they have a solid alibi. People have spent decades in jail over an unsubstantiated lies and accusations

[@XFizzlepop-Berrytwist]

I agree to an extent… sometimes circumstances can matter, and the law at hand was just stupid. Jurors have a right to let a man or woman go if they disagree with the law. Self defence cases for example are a big one, maybe you live in a state where self defence isnt as accepted in certain situations, or maybe dont extend to property, as it does in other states. Stand your ground laws? I say screw the duty to retreat laws, they are dumb, if thugs want to risk their lives over our hard earned stuff, we should have the right to fight them over it. I think its dumb some states force you to just let a criminal steal your money or hard earned possessions.

[@samshields777]

Knowing that one side tried to do something they shouldn’t have would even make me question everything else they’ve said. So I appreciate that things like that are called out and handled properly

[@KngMaxwell]

that’s something that’s very hard for someone who isn’t in court all the time.

[@twinnish]

I enjoy your videos. I took a lot of legal coursework and really enjoyed hearing my instructors. Tell us about fun things that happened in court and how things actually work and why things happen the way they do and you’re kind of bring me back to the best part of school. The good thing is you aren’t wearing parachute pants like one of my lecturers- who we loved, but we had to make fun of his pants.

[@JEPaSo_]

I like your tie. It looks cool. 👍

[@Scotty-thrive-tribe]

so you could toe the line in an attempt to "incept" or muddy their reasoning? i imagine the judge would be upset if it was seriously biasing the jury...right?

[@fakjbf3129]

Judges get very annoyed by such shenanigans. A somewhat recent high profile example was during the Kyle Rittenhouse trial when the prosecution was explicitly told not to draw inferences about Kyle’s silence to the media as it’s his protected fifth amendment right. At one point the prosecution started asking him about why he stayed silent and the judge blew up at them for flagrantly violating his order.

[@BnFGProductions]

@@fakjbf3129I find this kinda wild. In the UK, you have a right to silence and to make no comment. The jury is also allowed to infer what they want from that.

[@brandonn6099]

​@@fakjbf3129So absurd too. Even if it had nothing to do with legal advice, it's totally understandable you wouldn't want to bring up being chased by a rageful mob and having to 86 a couple felons.

[@alexisJonius]

"pretend you didnt hear that." "Why?"

[@ryangallagher3371]

If there’s some huge piece of evidence that the jury is told to disregard, more often than not do they actually disregard it or still think about it

[@MikeRafiLawyer]

If it’s a huge piece of evidence, the judge and the lawyers have already decided before the trial ever began whether that piece of evidences admissible. Big stuff worked out in advance. And if you as a lawyer, no you have a big piece of evidence that is questionably admissible, but the judge hasn’t addressed the issue, you bring it up before you ever try to use the information during trial. Because if you’re wrong, there could be a missed trial. And no lawyer wants a mist trial, because then we just have to do the same thing over again months later.

[@pinball66]

@@MikeRafiLawyerHaha, Mist Trial.

[@KSmith-kp5jz]

@@pinball66 I bet this comment was made using voice-to-text. No one accidentally mistypes “know” as “no.” Lol

[@65Superhawk]

I've been in front of juries for 20 years on the criminal defense side. I don't think that any limiting instruction really hits home with jurors. The reason there is a phrase you can't unring a bell, is because you can't unring a bell

[@toslaw9615]

When were objections first introduced to the courts? I bet in the earliest forms of common law there was no such thing.

[@dg4262]

Isn't it also to prevent bad testimony before it comes in so that they don't hear it in the fist place?

[@kingace6186]

Woah. That last part is really important. Now I get why objections are so important.

[@gmennc2648]

You can instruct them not to take it into deliberation but that implicit bias is still going to be there.

[@QueenAleenaFan]

Yeah good luck with trusting that I'm sure a lot of people say things that will be objected to so that the jury and judge will hear it and consider it

[@zagdyo9115]

So they arent asking you to "pretend you didnt hear it", but they are instructing you to "not take it into consideration"? Seems like the same thing to me but in lawyer language

[@xenoblad]

Is there good empirical evidence that juries actually follow that order given by the judge? Last time I was in Jury duty, we were considering every objection and ignoring clear black and white evidence of the defendant admitting to our face that they are guilty of 1 of the two charges. No one was allowed to listen to the jury deliberation. So, how can the jury be held accountable?

[@joedonahue7929]

It's all well and good to know you're supposed to disregard something you heard, but... the brain don't work that way. If i hear something i wasn't supposed to, even if i know i wasn't supposed to hear it, that info is still there and it's going to affect my thought process and opinion on the situation.

[@henrycarlson7514]

Interesting , Thank You

[@DWT1001]

"There's always exceptions" spoken like a real lawyer!

[@thorskjelver8564]

most interesting piece of civpro

[@_Bumby_]

This reminds me of that scene from Walking Tall where the main character takes off his shirt and shows the jury how he was beaten. The judge says “I’m instructing the jury to ignore what you just saw.”

[@TH-cw6wb]

With my disability , I won't remember not to consider it. Once ot's there, it's there.

[@Nosikas]

your tie looks neat

[@Maeve_Rose]

well since a judge has no right under law to know what happens in a jury deliberations. thats a lot of trust you got placed in 12 randos

[@Why-wd3zg]

But I mean it’s also impossible for people not to consider something. It will have an effect even if subconsciously

[@OscarLindelod]

So they tried to use these things just like say it out loud in court even if you do object it

[@QHalvorson]

One of the few constants: When something is "always," it's almost always tied to an exception.

[@MandatoryHashTags]

In a case we all know about I am so confused how his litigators just let so much float by without objecting to it they killed their future case.

[@Chadyaniki]

thank god he did not listen.

[@sarah8900]

Off topic... Where did you get your tie? I love it.

[@DreamTheory1994]

And this is why I shouldn't be on a jury that's not how my brain works.

[@mattmilford8106]

"because you should follow the law." Meh. I'm the jury. I am the law! bwahahaha

[@extremepsykosis]

Just make sure the plaintiff can't physically make it to court.... Not too hard.

[@thefaboo]

Not everybody's Boeing or IBM.

[@Mello_me]

your tie makes white collar feel blue collar 😂

[@Usarmymilitary75]

I’ve been a jury foreman before. And I don’t care if they say don’t consider something if it makes reasonable sense I’m still going to take it into consideration because why should we let the legal system hide evidence everything should be taken into account on both sides

[@GeassEnabler]

I hope I'm never selected for a Jury because I might disregard the objection completely regardless of the Judge's "instructions".

[@DudeTotally1000]

They absolutely consider things they're not supposed to. It's almost impossible not to.

[@BeeHash]

That tie is all that

[@theduke7539]

Good thing juries cant be punished for their decisions so long as the only influence on their decisions is their personal reasoning and what happened in the court room

[@Erojagan]

Im still gonna consider it and you cant stop me

[@lemmonsinmyeyes]

So could a mistrial or appeal be permitted for a single objection that ‘contaminates’ the jury? Wouldn’t this just be perpetual appeals until bankruptcy?

[@itshunni8346]

Yes, because that is justice. An appeal should be presented if the convicted can prove the conviction comes from a bad jury and not good facts. You dont get a appeal if the jury would have found you guilty anyway.

[@RJGa]

I was on a jury. We were told to disregard something. I was surprised that in deliberations no one mentioned it.

[@alexwolfeboy]

“Just don’t consider what you heard” okay, because that’s possible.

[@roberthickman2907]

I am a regular juror and I never considered questions and have been addicted to.

[@chrisfriday7666]

Watched some trails an Objection can be used as a flow interrupter. If the other side is just hitting point after point objection you are going to lose the objection but you broke up their flow

[@jamesmcdude2239]

It depends on the immensity of the thing that is objected to. If its something minor or not of interest id exclude it but if its something fucking massive like a murder weapon that got excluded due to chain of command issues im sure as hell factoring that into my consideration.

[@sealand000]

You still can't unhear it

[@zero1zerolast393]

I usually listen to see if the music stopped, then decide whether I take the penalty or reset

[@noahokas6520]

How often would you say you make objections??

[@user-gb1jv3bq5l]

Of course you’re going to consider it. You can’t unhear something

[@NoThankUBeQuiet]

You cannot help but consider it on some level.

[@angelputin8383]

I'm going to consider it even harder

[@muriella8008]

Why is your tie textured like that? Does it stay tied better?

[@connerymartin2952]

Its so its considered in appelas

[@JakeWitmer]

Your attitude is really great, and I appreciate your delivery. You occasionally seem like you have too much faith in the system...but...that could just be salesmanship. (I'm not hating. I appreciate good salesmanship...as per Cialdini's "Influence.") Don't let the system wear you down! (I'd be curious to hear your ideas on Clay Conrad's book "Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine.")

[@EpicWinNoob]

"you didn't speak up in the moment so clearly you were fine with it and there's no reason now that you lost to suddenly take issue with that statement"

[@gabby9470]

I’m 16 and an aspiring lawyer, this year is I’m doing competition for mock trial as an attorney and I was wondering if you have any tips on how to be confident in court and any tips to learn my objections so I know when to call them and for what?

[@mekosmowski]

Does chemistry or the law have more exceptions? I got bit by an exception tutoring organic chem this week.

[@JordanWeber]

Jonny Depp case anyone? Amber's lawyers said objection after every sentence.

[@beatmasterbossy]

Objection "Overruled" I strenuously object, Your Honor "Oh, well, in that case..."

[@DrukenReaps]

I also feel like there is a lot of movie mythology around objections xD In reality they just aren't all that exciting nor take place all that often in my, albeit limited, experience.

[@MikeRafiLawyer]

That’s correct. They at least don’t happen during trial about big issues usually, because those are worked out before the trial ever began.

[@WirableCrown1]

I object!

[@italifacts1461]

_Also, the cool Objection Music doesn't start until you call Objection!_

[@lukeskywalker82]

Is there a theoretical situation where jurors can decide that they don't wanna make a decision on whether the defendant is guilty or not because they believe their opinion can't be just because of hearing too many statements that were objected? Not asking if it happened, but asking if they have that option? Like tell the judge that it's impossible anymore for them to make a decision without taking objected statements into consideration?

[@airbots4789]

İ mean, there's Jury nullification which is probably the closest thing to what you're talking about. I'm not going to go further into it because knowing what Jury Nullification even is can prevent you from ever being on a Jury in the future. So, research at your own risk.

[@chasefox-n9k]

​@@airbots4789 sounds like a win to me. The whole jury process is for sucker's and people to dumb to get out of it.

[@declanhawthorne2233]

When you’re on the jury do they tell you all this? Like how much prep is there to be on a jury? (I’ve never been on one)

[@libertatem_aut_mori_conatur]

Does this apply to administrative law?

[@jarik9]

I was on a jury once. The judge told us we would be hearing limited information for whatever reason, and boy was he not kidding. It was 2 days of the prosecution and defense tiptoing so carefully and being so vague that I could even tell you what the trial was about beyond a guy was accused of 'something'. At one point a witness started talking about an event, making it seem like we would finally get a clue as to what was even going on and the judge immediately stopped her and told us to disregard it.

[@medelicityliu7934]

🌟🌈You Should Follow the Law🌈🌟

[@Muhammad-re4wk]

I'ma consider it still, we got full immunity in our deliberations.

[@vishalkote1475]

Ace attorney be like: “OBJECTION!, … that was objectionable”

[@2psnopod]

That tie tho 😂

[@RobVespa]

It influences the jury, which is why people do that. Perhaps if the individual were held accountable, it would happen less. How many decisions have been swayed secondary to this behavior?

[@VivBrodock]

have you considered option 3? If you get any chance to interrupt your opponents flow you should take the opportunity to do that

[@MikeRafiLawyer]

Why would you interrupt a shitty flow? And sometimes if the testimony is really good, you just want it to be over as quick as possible.

[@yeahyeah5641]

OBJECTION!!!

[@boomhaur626]

bro IDGAF what the judge says EVERYONE will consider it, the attorney that pulls that shit should be charged and PUNISHED for their BS

[@ДмитрийЗеленский-ж7х]

But people literally cannot "not consider", as shown in a number of studies.

[@artisanshrew]

*I believe him when he says his wife doesn't watch his KZbin channel because she wouldn't let him wear that fugly tie - if she did!!* *But still luv ya!*

[@johnathangreay987]

Was their ever a judge that farted in his or her response?! 😂lol!

[@russellanderson8844]

Can you as a jury member do anything about it? My mind gets cought up on things quite a bit and its very hard if not impossible for me to not consider something especially if id lean one way without that information but another with it. Could that be grounds for jury nullification?

[@joemcconville2813]

“I’m going to look at you duckers” proceeds to not look at the duckers in question

[@shaunofthedead3000]

I can guarantee you 100% that ANYTHING objected to is definitely considered EVEN IF they say it didn’t come in to play.

[@cornheadahh]

What if you consider it anyways?

[@iluvtacos1231]

If I hear something that is objected to that I know I won't be able to not consider later on in the trial, would I be excused from being on that jury?

[@tessajones9393]

I wish I knew about this as a kid/teen. Whenever my older brothers were making me look bad, my parents could have heard it but not considered that in judgement towards me 😂

[@KamiKomplex504]

And you can't deliberate on it right? I would also think a sound objection and threat of appeal could be enough to force a favorable settlement?

[@vampy5071]

Sometimes lawyers will say something with full anticipation of being objected to, but they do it to plant information onto the jury, even though they cant use the information, it still puts a certain thought into their minds about the character of a person perhaps, and its 100% intentional

[@nezzee]

That appeal part is the big one. It's like "thanks for giving me something to argue if the jury doesn't rule in my favor." Obviously it still needs to be determined by a judge to have been significant enough where it could have swayed the jury's decision, but yeah, you don't want to let opposition get in unfair digs without calling them on it in case it DOES become a deciding factor that swayed a jury.

[@SkeletalCommissar]

Breaking unjust laws is your moral right.

[@mmmtm8930]

More like moral duty.

[@jamesupton4996]

As long as you accept the penalties.