In two multimillion-dollar cases, Georgia’s Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are wrestling with lawyers’ obligations to object when their opponents appear to violate a judge’s rule against bringing up particular evidence or arguments.

The cases concern trial tactics around sensitive topics that one side—and a judge—believe could unfairly influence a jury. Although an immediate objection typically preserves the issue for an appeal, a 1982 state high court ruling held that requiring an objection would force the lawyer who asked for the restriction “to call special attention to prejudicial evidence” the judge had already ruled should be shielded from the jury.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]