Recently, Pennsylvania Law Weekly published a commentary by attorney James Beck, “Waiver in the 21st Century—Insufficiency of Argument.” In it, Beck reviewed cases where Pennsylvania appellate courts found waiver due to undeveloped arguments. I would like to clarify when and why appellate courts find waiver to help lawyers avoid this pitfall.

Generally, there are three types of waiver. The first occurs when the lawyer fails to object in the trial court. Lawyers usually object to testimony, exhibits, and closing arguments, but they should also remember to object to any issues that arise during voir dire, jury instructions, verdict-slip creation, and at verdict when the verdict is inconsistent. Attorneys must state the basis for the objection, and when appropriate, move for a mistrial or curative instruction. Timely objections at the trial court are necessary to give trial judges the opportunity to correct errors in real time.

This content has been archived.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]