Whether you're a true crime enthusiast or a newcomer to the courtroom, this video explains everything you need to know about objections, the introduction of evidence, and witness testimony for your next True Crime Trial.

Go see @RecoveryAddict !

Chapters:
00:00 – Watching True Crime
00:43 – Decoding Objections
04:16 – Understanding Exhibits
05:57 – Interpreting Witness Testimony
08:52 – True Crime With Friends

Also find our content on:
Facebook.com/MatthewHarrisLaw
Instagram @Matthew_Harris_Law
Google Maps – https://g.page/MatthewHarrisLaw
Website https://matthewharrislaw.com/

Music:
The Truth – Anno Domini Beats
Music provided via YouTube Studio Audio Library

True Crime trials have captivated audiences worldwide, offering a glimpse into the complex and often mystifying world of the legal system. From the OJ Simpson trial in 1995 to the Alex Murdaugh trial in more recent years, millions of people have tuned in to watch as real lives hang in the balance and real victims await justice.

For viewers with minimal courtroom experience, deciphering the nuances of objections, the introduction of evidence, and witness testimony can be both intriguing and overwhelming.

When you find yourself engrossed in the drama of a True Crime trial, it helps to know the basics of courtroom procedure.

Whether you've watched True Crime trials, listened to crime podcasts, or bingewatched documentaries, this introduction will help you navigate the legal labyrinth with confidence.

Decoding Objections

Imagine a courtroom as a chessboard, where every move is strategic and calculated. Objections are the pieces in this game, used by attorneys to challenge improper questions, evidence, or witness testimonies. Understanding these objections is crucial for decoding the courtroom drama.

1. Relevance: Objections based on relevance occur when a question or piece of evidence doesn't pertain to the case at hand. Evidence or Testimony is relevant if it makes a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

This objection is simply asserted by stating, "Objection, relevance."

2. Hearsay: Not all out of court statements are hearsay. Hearsay objections are made to exclude statements made outside the courtroom that are offered for the truth of the matter asserted. If the statement isn’t being offered for the purpose of the jury believing that the statement is true, then it isn’t hearsay.

For example, if the witness says, “my wife told me someone was breaking into the house,” and it is being offered to prove that someone was in fact breaking into the house, then yes, that is hearsay. However, if the witness says, “I grabbed my gun because my wife told me someone was breaking into the house,” then the wife’s statement isn’t hearsay because it isn’t being offered to prove that someone was breaking into the house, but only as the basis for grabbing the gun.

There are some exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as statements made by an opposing party to the case, statements against interest, present sense impressions, excited utterances, and statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment; but we’ll save those for an Advanced True Crime trials video in the future.

This objection asserted by stating, "Objection, hearsay."

3. Leading Questions: Attorneys are not allowed to lead any friendly witnesses (meaning that they are there to offer evidence that is beneficial to side asking the questions) during direct examination. Leading questions suggest the answer to the witness and do not really test the memory of the witness and allow the attorney to essentially testify for the witness.

If the question calls for a yes/no answer, then it is probably a leading question. If the question ends with “isn’t that correct?” then it is absolutely a leading question. Openended questions usually begin with Who, What, When, Where, Why, or How.

This objection is simply asserted by stating, "Objection, leading."

4. Speculation: Witnesses are supposed to testify about facts within their personal knowledge. This objection prevents witnesses from offering opinions, guesses, or speculations about facts or events that they do not have direct knowledge or expertise about.

This one is sometimes difficult to identify because rarely do attorneys ask, “can you please speculate for us?”

If the attorney asks a question like, “why did the Defendant to that?” well that calls for speculation. The witness doesn’t have personal knowledge of the Defendant’s motives and therefore cannot speculate about them. Another sneaky way that attorneys ask witnesses to speculate is by asking the witness why they think something happened.

An objection might be raised: "Objection, Judge, the witness is being asked to speculate."

5. Character Evidence: Evidence that suggests a person's character or trait to prove that they acted in accordance with that character or trait on a particular occasion is generally not admissible. That means...