“Please state your name, spelling your last for the record.”
“Objection! The question calls for hearsay.”
“If allowed to testify, I have a good faith belief that the witness will state her name. Since she only knows her name because other people told it to her in her childhood, this is an out-of-court statement being brought in to court to prove the truth of the assertion.”
“Where were you on August 30, 2012?”
“Objection, lack of foundation. It has not been established that this witness is over a year and a half old.”
“Opposing counsel just said that if allowed to testify, he has a good faith belief that the witness will state [whatever]. This is grammatically ambiguous.
In fact, the order of the clauses in this sentence implies that he only has this belief if he himself is allowed to testify, which he is not. Clearly he intended for the witness to be the subject of the subordinate clause. What he actually meant to say was “I have a good faith belief that, if allowed to testify, the witness will state [whatever].” If I may invite the court’s attention to these sentence diagrams…”
“Under Rule 201 (b) (2), the court may take judicial notice of any fact that can be accurately and readily determined from sources that cannot reasonably be questioned. And 201 (c) (2) states that the court must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the necessary information is supplied.
Here, the necessary sources that cannot be questioned are your own eyes, as well as the eyes of everyone else in the courtroom. Therefore, I request that Your Honor instruct the jury that opposing counsel’s face is ugly.”
“Objection, improper character.”
“No character evidence has been elicited. I’m going to overrule that unless you’re very convincing.”
“My objection is not to improper character evidence, your honor. The witness is just being a jerk.”
And one argument that did occur.
Attorney: “Objection, relevance. The location of the witness’ pants has no bearing on any fact of consequence in this case.”
Other attorney: “He bare witness [sic] to overhearing a conversation from a bathroom stall, so this goes to the credibility of his perceptions.”
Judge: “Can we stop using that word in connection with the location of the pants?”
(It’s paraphrased because I didn’t have a pen handy at the time, but I’m pretty sure I didn’t change the number of homophones.)
The objection got overruled.