M/TV board lawyers, do y’all really object in court as much as shows indicate?

It's TV so the lawyer being objected to is probably being retarded and testifying for their clients.

I think you see way too many objections in lawyer TV shows/movies because:

A) it makes sense (see above)

B) to just create drama, antagonism and maybe show the lawyer is over-stepping their bounds.

TV/Movies don't like witnesses to testify, takes too long. They like lawyers to testify while examining or cross-examining the witness.

The one we all love is where the lawyer goes on some soliloquy to the jury while a witness is on the stand and you hear objection and the lawyer just waves his hand and says "withdrawn!"

And the objections are never the more technical ones that the average viewer isn't going to know...the boring ones. I think every objection in TV/Movies is Argumentative, Speculation, Hearsay and Inflammatory.

You'll never hear objections based on foundation of evidence, etc.

Worse most TV shows don't even state the objection, they just say objection! You see this in movies a lot where the judge has to say on what grounds? If the judge has to ask (then it's not going to be sustained.)

No.

The Good Wife has completely unrealistic and incomprehensible court scenes. They can be entertaining, but they're a complete mess in terms of realism.

The only time you really see a lot of objections is over a line of questioning that the judge has told one side or another to stay away from.

I've seen a murder trial where the defense objected like 10 times in a row to every question presented to a witness because the state was trying to get the witness to speak about what may have been going on in the defendant's head and his character.

Only "experts" are supposed to be able to testify to those aspects and this witness was not that.

If there are a lot of objections, the judge will usually call both attorneys to approach the bench and he'll tell them to cut the shite. He may do that 2 or 3 times if the objections continue.


Most hearings and trials (at least criminal ones) are pretty open and shut and one side (usually the state) has overwhelming evidence against the defendant.

TV lawyering is an over the top vaudeville act of emotions. Real trials are extremely boring and extremely precise in its presentation of the facts. Only the opening and closing statements or a good witness will it ever be that interesting.

Not usually unless you have a really shitty or assho opponent.

Typically, you get it on the record and if the judge doesn't back you up, you just make it continuing and he'll note it.

You want to object where you know you're getting a "sustain" in front of the jury and to otherwise preserve the issue on appeal. Other than that, you appear obstructive, IMHO.

Of course, there are very successful trial lawyers out there who object an awful lot. And some clients want a "bulldog", so some of that is client service as well. I just never got into that mode.

I just assume that everything involving the law is exactly like an episode of Suits.

In a general litigation context, Goliath, although a great show, repeatedly had some crazy plot-driver aspects. Like, a lawsuit or motion would be filed and the hearing was like the next day or so.

I tried 2 episodes of Goliath and couldn't do it. I'm usually pretty good about understanding it's just entertainment but that was too much for me.

Guy files in State Court, and this big shot law firm is sitting on pins and needles about a low level associate writing a simple motion to dismiss - which is heard the very next day - and then granted, with ZERO explanation of the basis for the dismissal.

So they file in Fed Court (while the company's general counsel walks around screaming frick over and over b/c a lawsuit was filed against them??), and that suit is also dismissed the very next day - again, ZERO explanation of the grounds for the dismissal - and no contradictory hearing, or notice to the parties, or explanation for the judge granting it - he just kills the case because he wants to.

So they go back to State Court and re-file, because the lawyers were friends with the Judge's clerk, who apparently had the power to revive a suit as a favor?

I was out after that.



ETA - as far as objections go, I don't do it much. One, juries don't like it. Two, you are signaling to the jury (who may not be paying attention), that the other side just said something important that hurts your case and they should focus on it. I only object if I have to.

I have definitely been in trial and at depositions wherein nearly everything was objected to. Part of that is preserving for appeal and part of that is a dumbass lawyer doing dumbass things or a stickler lawyer being a jackass and objecting even over shite that doesn’t matter.

First time I ever saw a real trial I was amazed at how much goes on behind with the jury not present and how much the jury sometimes does not know about the defendant.

Past criminal records is a real biggy. The defendant can have numerous past felonies and the jury won't even know it.