What Does ‘Sustained’ Mean in Court?
In a legal context, the term ‘sustained‘ refers to a judge’s ruling on an objection raised during a court proceeding. When an attorney objects to a question, evidence, or statement made by the opposing counsel or a witness, the judge will either ‘sustain’ or ‘overrule’ the objection.
If the judge ‘sustains’ the objection, it means they agree with the grounds for the objection and disallow the question, evidence, or statement. Essentially, a ‘sustained’ objection is the judge’s way of upholding the objection and preventing the opposing party from continuing with the line of questioning or introducing the disputed evidence or statement.
When an objection is ‘sustained,’ the attorney who raised the objection has successfully prevented the opposing party from presenting potentially inadmissible or improper information to the court or jury. The opposing attorney must then rephrase their question, move on to a different line of inquiry, or find an alternative way to introduce the evidence or make their point without violating the rules of evidence or procedure.
Court Objections and Rulings
In court proceedings, objections are a fundamental aspect of the adversarial system, allowing attorneys to challenge the admissibility or relevance of evidence, testimony, or statements made by the opposing party. The judge presides over these objections and makes rulings, determining whether the objection is “sustained” (accepted) or “overruled” (rejected).
The process typically involves an attorney raising an objection during questioning or the presentation of evidence, stating the legal grounds for the objection. The judge then considers the objection, often hearing arguments from both sides, before making a ruling. If the objection is sustained, the judge instructs the questioning attorney to rephrase or move on, effectively excluding the contested evidence or testimony. Conversely, if the objection is overruled, the questioning can proceed as intended.
Sustaining an Objection
When a judge “sustains” an objection raised during a court proceeding, it means they agree with the objecting party that the evidence, testimony, or line of questioning being presented is inadmissible or improper. By sustaining the objection, the judge is preventing that particular piece of information from being entered into the official record or considered by the judge or jury.
Sustaining an objection has significant implications for the case. Any evidence or testimony that is successfully objected to and sustained by the judge is effectively struck from the record and cannot be used to support arguments or factual claims. This can undermine or weaken a party’s position if key pieces of evidence are excluded.
Additionally, when an objection is sustained during questioning, the attorney asking questions must rephrase or move on to a new line of inquiry. They cannot continue pursuing that same thread of questioning that drew the sustained objection. This can disrupt an attorney’s planned strategy and force them to adapt their approach.
Overall, having an objection sustained is a victory for the objecting party, as it removes potentially damaging information from consideration and can hamper the opposing counsel’s case presentation. However, the impacts are usually confined to that specific piece of evidence or testimony rather than terminating the entire case proceeding.
Overruling an Objection
In contrast to sustaining an objection, when a judge “overrules” an objection, it means they have rejected the objection and allowed the questioned evidence, testimony, or argument to be admitted or continue. An overruled objection permits the opposing party to proceed with the line of questioning, presentation of evidence, or legal argument.
There are several reasons why a judge may overrule an objection:
Common Grounds for Objections
Lawyers may object to evidence or testimony on various grounds during a trial or court proceeding. Some common reasons for objections include:
Relevance: Evidence or testimony must be relevant to the case at hand. If it is not relevant or has minimal probative value, it may be objected to as irrelevant.
Hearsay: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is generally inadmissible unless it falls under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Leading Questions: On direct examination, attorneys are typically not allowed to ask leading questions (questions that suggest the desired answer) of their own witnesses. However, leading questions may be permitted on cross-examination.
Speculation: Witnesses are generally not allowed to speculate or offer opinions beyond their personal knowledge or expertise.
These are just a few examples of common grounds for objections in court proceedings. The specific rules and procedures for objections may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the type of case.
Preserving Objections for Appeal
This is known as the “contemporaneous objection rule.” It requires parties to give the trial judge an opportunity to prevent or correct potential errors.
By objecting and obtaining a clear ruling from the judge, the objecting party creates a record that can be reviewed by the appeals court if necessary. A sustained objection demonstrates that the trial judge recognized the potential error. An overruled objection shows the judge’s contrary ruling, which the appeals court can then review for correctness.
Strategic Use of Objections
Objections in court serve a purpose beyond just following the rules of evidence. Seasoned trial lawyers often use objections as a tactical tool to disrupt the flow of opposing counsel’s questioning, throw them off their line of questioning, or buy time to rethink their own strategy.
When a lawyer senses the opposing counsel is making headway with a line of questioning that could hurt their case, a well-timed objection can break that momentum. Even if the objection is eventually overruled, it forces the questioning lawyer to pause and re-frame their next question. This can disrupt their rhythm and thought process.
Objections can also be used to signal things to the jury without directly stating them. For example, repeatedly objecting to certain lines of questioning can plant a seed with the jury that the opposing counsel is trying to mislead or distort the truth.
Experienced litigators may sometimes make objections they know will be overruled, just to reinforce key points with the jury. An objection highlighting a lack of foundation or improper question phrasing can undermine the weight the jury gives to that particular evidence or testimony.
In some cases, lawyers make speculative objections hoping the judge will sustain them on grounds not specifically cited. This can prevent inadmissible evidence from ever reaching the jury’s ears in the first place.
While objections are bound by court rules, skilled attorneys use them judiciously as part of their overall strategy to control the narrative, pace, and implications drawn by the jury. The ability to make objections count becomes its own tactical art form in the hands of a veteran trial lawyer.
Etiquette for Objecting
Proper courtroom etiquette is essential when making objections during a trial. Lawyers should follow specific procedures to ensure objections are made appropriately and with respect for the court.
First, lawyers should stand when making an objection, unless the judge permits them to remain seated. This shows respect for the court and ensures the objection is heard clearly.
Next, the objecting lawyer should state the objection concisely and precisely, without elaborating or arguing the merits of the objection. For example, “Objection, hearsay” or “Objection, leading question.” Lengthy explanations or arguments should be avoided unless the judge requests further clarification.
It’s important to avoid interrupting the opposing counsel or witness while they are speaking. Lawyers should wait for an appropriate pause or break in the questioning before raising an objection. Interrupting unnecessarily can be seen as disruptive and disrespectful.
Lawyers should also refrain from making excessive or frivolous objections. Objections should be made judiciously and only when there is a valid legal basis. Overusing objections can frustrate the judge and potentially undermine the lawyer’s credibility.
When an objection is sustained or overruled, lawyers should accept the judge’s ruling graciously, without argument or visible frustration. Challenging or disrespecting the judge’s authority can lead to sanctions or contempt of court charges.
Finally, lawyers should maintain a professional and courteous demeanor throughout the objection process. Raising objections should not be done in an aggressive, confrontational, or disruptive manner. Proper courtroom etiquette helps ensure a fair and orderly trial process.
Limiting Instructions After Sustained Objections
When a judge sustains an objection to a particular piece of evidence or testimony, they will often provide a limiting instruction to the jury. This instruction directs the jurors to disregard the objectionable information and not consider it when deliberating and reaching a verdict.
Limiting instructions serve an important purpose in ensuring a fair trial. Inadmissible evidence or improper testimony, if allowed to remain unchecked, could unfairly prejudice the jury against one party.
However, the effectiveness of limiting instructions is often debated.
Responding to ‘Sustained’ Rulings
It is important to remain composed and professional, even if the ruling goes against your case strategy.
The proper response is to simply say “Thank you, Your Honor” or “Yes, Your Honor” and then proceed accordingly. Arguing with the judge or showing frustration is considered inappropriate and may risk sanctions or contempt charges.
In some cases, you may need to rephrase your question or lay additional foundation before revisiting the topic. Pay close attention to the judge’s guidance and rulings to understand what is and is not permissible.
Ultimately, sustained objections require flexibility and adaptation in your trial strategy. Remain professional, make a record if necessary, and seamlessly transition to your next line of questioning or evidence presentation. The ability to pivot smoothly demonstrates skill and competence in the courtroom.