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
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.
Latest Answers