If the opposite party doesn’t object then this bad question gets asked and answered which is Injustice, because it’s bias etc even though everyone in the room may have heard the bad question.
but the lawyer just didn’t object and the judge should step in and say to ask the question differently but instead they just allow this injustice question I don’t understand why.
Update: ok thank you I realized that people say it’s not the judge’s job now this doesn’t solve the problem and if they ask bad questions they need to be told these are bad questions instead of just consistently making the other person object because these bad questions will get through eventually unless you do a million objections I just feel like this is quite suboptimized it should be everyone in the room saying objection if they hear about question not just the other team if I sew a criminal and the police officer I wouldn’t just leave it up to the police officer to capture the criminal I’d point to the criminal and say this is a criminal
In: Economics
It is the job of the attorney to object and explain why they object.
The judge is not going to do the work for either side.
Objecting is important even if the judge doesn’t grant the objection, because it preserves the issue for appeal.
The judge can do that, if they think the question was asked in a way that conflicts with the law. Usually, the lawyers object first because it’s their job to get the best outcome for their client so they are invested in looking for these issues. But judges have to keep their courtroom orderly and legal, and part of that is dismissing questions that aren’t legally sound
Objections in reality are much rather than TV portrays. TV loves drama, court rooms hate it.
Whether a question can be asked will depend upon various reasons. It’s usually not a wording issue. It might impinge upon excluded evidence or information, such as past convictions, for example.
But generally any questionable questions like that would be raised without the jury present before asking. Every ineligible question asked raises the chance of it allowing an appeal down the line or causing a mistrial.
Judges don’t like mistrials or lawyers who cause mistrials. They’re expensive and a waste of everyone’s time. Do it maliciously, negligently, or too much and you’ll be disbarred. Pissing off judges and being incompetent is also a very bad career move.
Judges may allow inappropriate questions for various reasons, often much the same reason opposing counsel may not object. It may be irrelevant or actually help the other side, or calling attention to it may make it more prejudicial not less (in which case I’d expect a dressing down to come later).
It depends a lot on the kind of question and why it’s inappropriate. If its as simple as rewording would fix it, it probably isn’t worth objecting.
There’s a pretty big difference between what you see on TV and what actually happens in a courtroom. Courtroom dramas are all about the lawyers, presenting their arguments to the juries and getting witnesses who seem to have *zero* control over their emotions to spill the beans on the stand, and the judge seems to exist only to settle objections.
In reality, judges tend to me a lot more involved with the process, and it isn’t uncommon for the judge to object before the other attorney does. Granted that’s usually reserved for the most egregious etiquette breaches, but every judge is different and some “run much tighter ships” than others.
The judge isn’t primarily focused on the legal permissibility of a question or statement in court. While they will respond to particularly egregious violations, they are mostly focused on maintaining the court and evaluating the arguments presented for themselves/ the benefit of the jury.
An objection is the framework for a lawyer to call a foul on a question or statement that is not obviously contemptuous or disallowed to have him evaluate it and provide instructions (or penalties) if appropriate.
In real courts “Mr. X, please restate your question” is a reasonably common request; but it’s not the judge’s job to explain to the lawyer how to avoid breaking the rules. It’s up to the lawyer to correct his misstep or discard his disallowed approach.
The judge’s responsibilities are different from those of the attorneys. The judge is there to keep the conversation focused and relevant. In some cases, the judge may directly block a question without an attorney’s objection, but that would usually only happen in the most egregious circumstances.
Basically, it’s not the judge’s job to make sure that every single question is okay, in fact, the judge might not know, why a question is irrelevant, since they don’t have all of the context.
It’s the attorneys’ jobs to defend their clients’ rights, and the judge is there to uphold those rights. The judge is supposed to pay attention to what the various parties are saying, what their arguments are, if the arguments make sense, and how the law should apply, if they also had to make sure every question and answer are formulated correctly, then it would be much harder to do their actual job.
This kind of thing is also why in more high-profile cases, the parties will have a team of lawyers, with one lawyer focused on driving the conversation, and the others focused on checking the validity of questions, taking notes about what has been said, and advising the main attorney.
This happens often, the judge does not need to, because the lawyer can do it themselves, they can either address the nature of the question, or reword it immediately after in which case the opposing party may or may not object again.
Latest Answers