Common Evidence Issues in Family Part Trials (Part III): OK, the Rules Apply, but Now What?
"For this third installment, we now tackle the 'in-court' use of evidence rules to defend or pursue objections," write Matheu D. Nunn, Matthew James Troiano, Alyssa S. Engleberg and Jessica Sciara.
May 22, 2024 at 10:00 AM
13 minute read
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.
This content has been archived.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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Younger and Invigorated Bench': Biden's Legacy in New Jersey Federal Court
5 minute readBattles Won, Others Abandoned: 2024 Brought Big Change to the Judiciary
6 minute readWill 2025 Bring a Change to Lawyers' Mandatory Pro Bono Duties Under 'Madden'?
7 minute readJudges Push for Action to Combat Increasing Threats Against Judiciary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 2Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 3Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
- 4Zoom Faces Intellectual Property Suit Over AI-Based Augmented Video Conferencing
- 5Judge Grants TRO Blocking Federal Funding Freeze
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250