In previous New Jersey Law Journal issues, we authored “Common Evidence Issues in Family Part Trials: Yes, the Rules Apply“ (March 2021) and “Common Evidence Issues in Family Trials (Part II): The Rules Still Apply“ (June 2021). Those articles focused on substantive evidence issues that arise in Family Part matters, for example, credibility and character issues, hearsay, judicial notice, etc. For this third installment, we now tackle the “in-court” use of evidence rules to defend or pursue objections.

Unless you have lived without television for the last 50 years, you have seen Jack McCoy scream “badgering the witness,” Ben Matlock exclaim “asked and answered,” or Annalise Keating yell “calls for speculation.” What do the three attorneys all have in common? Yes, of course, these individuals are all attorneys on television who ask perfect questions and always win. Anecdotally, you have also seen Harvey Spector take on a case in a subject matter he’s never handled and resolve it in one episode. But beyond their fictional television status, all three attorneys used common objections—meaning, the actual words used to form the objection—although none of the objections appear verbatim in the Rules of Evidence. That is not to say that the objections are incorrect, in fact, they are each correct, and used often (if not always correctly). But like most evidence or trial issues, you should know the foundations of these objections. Indeed, if you encounter a trial judge who is well-learned in the Rules of Evidence, the judge may ask for the evidence rule that form the basis of the objection. From a practical perspective, you may also see the application of these Rules vary depending on whether the matter is being handled before a judge alone, in a bench trial or an evidentiary hearing, or before a jury.