Source: http://www.jameseducationcenter.com/articles/essential-objections-checklist/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 18:36:01+00:00

Document:
DISCUSSION: Argumentative questions, when directed to an adverse witness, frequently are not recognized by counsel or even the court. If the same question were directed to the examiner’s friendly witness, it would be recognized as leading and not calling for any facts from the witness. Addressed to an adverse witness, a question is argumentative if it does not call for new facts, and merely asks the witness to agree or disagree with a conclusion drawn by the examiner from proved or assumed facts. See Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 NW2d 291 (Minn.1948). Argumentative questions may be proper if directed to an adverse party, as an attempt to secure a judicial admission contrary to the position of the party. Argumentative questions also may be proper if an opinion has been given by the witness. Then counsel may properly state different facts than those used by the witness in forming his/her opinion and inquire if a different conclusionary opinion is correct. Allowance of argumentative objections, like all the other objections within the rubric of “objection as to form” (which see, below) is within the discretion of the trial judge.
Read Fed. R. Evid., Rules 404, 607, 608 and 609, or your equivalent state rules of evidence, for the exact rules, which in each jurisdiction have defined limitations on types and use of impeachment material. “Yet the trial court has discretion to exclude impeachment evidence, including a prior inconsistent statement, if it is collateral, cumulative, confusing, or misleading.” People v. Douglas, 50 Cal.3d 468, at 509, 788 P.2d 640 (1990).
Some matters are within the normal range of knowledge or understanding of the ordinary layperson, but can best be reported by the layperson in terms of an opinion. “Consequently, a lay witness may testify that a person was ‘drunk’ or that a car was traveling ‘fast.’”Comment, Rule 701, Tenn. R. Evidence. Nonexpert witnesses have been allowed to give answers in the form of opinions as to such things as physical condition and appearance of health. See, Hoffer v. Burd, 49 NW2d 282 (ND 1951); Nichols v. Kluver, 237 NW 640 (ND 1931) (wife re husband’s injury). Questions of physical condition are sometimes mingled with questions of medical or legal opinion so as to cause a court to keep the opinion out of evidence. See, Huus v. Ringo, 39 NW2d 505 (ND 1949) (whether plaintiff can do work he did before accident). If you have a problem looming, check the ALR annotations for material on admissibility of lay opinions. See,56 A.L.R.3d 575, admissibility of nonexpert opinion testimony as to weather conditions; 66 A.L.R.2d 1048, admissibility of opinion evidence as to point of impact or collision in motor vehicle accident case; 37 A.L.R.2d 967, admissibility of opinion of nonexpert owner as to value of chattel.
Important in many cases is the common holding that owners of property are entitled to give an opinion to the value of their own property even though they are not experts in valuation. Owners, due to that ownership, are presumed to have special knowledge of the value of their own property.” See, Tokles and Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indemnity Company, 65 Ohio St 3d 621 (1992); and Evans v. Evans(W. Va. 1997) (“we find that under Rule 701  of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the owner of destroyed or damaged personal property is qualified to give lay testimony as to the value of the personal property based on his or her personal knowledge”). Most courts have permitted the owner of a business to testify to the value or projected profits of the business, without the necessity of qualifying the witness as an accountant, appraiser, or similar expert. See, Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153 (3d Cir. 1993) (no abuse of discretion in permitting the plaintiff’s owner to give lay opinion testimony as to damages, as it was based on his knowledge and participation in the day-to-day affairs of the business). But see cases like Jim’s Hot Shot Serv. v. Continental W. Ins. Co., 353 N.W.2d 279 (N.D. 1984) holding that although the owner can testify, the opinion may be legally insufficient to support a verdict if the value opinion is without any valid basis.
In the pre-trial motion rulings, the court may have made determinations of what evidence can, or cannot, be admitted. Always in some jurisdictions and sometimes in every jurisdiction, these pre-trial rulings are not final. Often it is required that at the trial itself the question has to be asked, or the exhibit offered, again by the counsel, even if the pre-trial ruling was against him/her. It is only the ruling at trial that is a final ruling. We cannot state this too strongly. Error is not always preserved by the granting or denying of a motion in limine. See,Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. McCardell, 369 S.W.2d 331 (Tex. 1963). Many states insist that in every situation, it is the court’s subsequent exclusion or admission of relevant evidence — at the trial, not the pretrial ruling on a motion for admission or exclusion — that is the final ruling. See, Schutz v. Southern Union Gas Co., 617 S.W.2d 299, 303 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1981, no writ). Not only is the ruling at trial the only final ruling, but if you have received an adverse pre-trial ruling on admissibility, if you fail to ask the question, or offer the exhibit when you are in the trial, you may be deemed to have waived your offer of evidence! The theory of this two-stage process (pre-trial ruling is preliminary, final ruling is made only during the trial itself) is that the trial court should have a chance during the actual trial to determine if at that point the trial court wants to change its ruling.
The law of the sundry states and federal circuits is quite varied on the question of whether a losing party on an pre-trial evidentiary ruling must renew an objection or offer of proof when the evidence is or would be offered at trial, in order to preserve a claim of error on appeal. Some courts have held that a renewal at the time the evidence is to be offered at trial is always required. See, Collins v. Wayne Corp., 621 F.2d 777 (5th Cir. 1980). In contrast, other courts have held that renewal of the offer of proof or of the objection is not required if (1) the issue decided is of a type which may be decided as a final matter before the evidence is actually offered, and (2) the trial judge stated her ruling was final and presentation of the evidence or objection to it does not have to be presented at the trial for a final ruling. See, Rosenfeld v. Basquiat,78 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 1996). The problem with that latter formulation for the trial lawyer, of course, is guessing what the appeals court will decide is “a type which may be decided…,” and what the trial court “intended to rule….” What is a trial lawyer to do to act in a “fail-safe” mode during trial?
Honaker v. Mahon, 210 W. Va.53, 552 S.E.2d 788 (2001).
The Fifth Amendment to theUnited States Constitution. Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248 (1983) (the privilege is available in civil proceedings); Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 US 308 (1976) (“the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them”). The privilege does not extend to records required by statute to be kept. United States v. Doe, 465 US 605 (1984).
Attorney Work Product. Federal law distinguishes between opinion (core) and ordinary work product of attorneys. Core work product consists of mental impressions and conclusions and is given absolute protection. Ordinary work product consists of primary information, such as a witness’s recorded statement or objective data collected by the attorney; it is given only limited protection and may be obtained upon a showing of substantial need and undue hardship. Fed. Rules Civ. P., Rule 26 (b)(3); Robinson v.Texas Auto Dealers Assn., 214 FRD 432, at 444 (E.D. Tex, 2003).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.