A lawyer interviewed directly asks his witness, a layman with no legal training: “So John Doe was negligent?” Opposing counsel could raise an argumentative objection. In this context, “negligent” is a legal concept of art with a precise and narrow meaning, and the witness cannot reasonably answer the question without understanding the relevant law. Since counsel “argues” that John Doe led the witness negligently, the objection would be upheld and inappropriate statements removed from the minutes. The problem with a defense lawyer standing up and essentially opposing and prosecuting the judge that the plaintiff`s lawyer is insulting his witness is nothing more than whining and complaining to the judge for help. When a defense lawyer jumps out of his seat and shouts, “Appeal judge. He insults my witness! What does this mean exactly? This phrase, which I just mentioned, “insulting the witness,” simply indicates the perception that the lawyer creates a hostile environment for the witness, is argumentative and abhorrent. I find this analogy very appropriate when a defense lawyer says, “Judge, he insults my witness!” One of them shouts that mom should come and help. Mom enters and now one of the children explains why the other did not treat him fairly. Mom has to make a quick decision that she believes in from her children. Sometimes he does nothing. Sometimes she punishes one of them.

Sometimes she lets them both go with a warning. However, in this example, the lawyer conducting the direct examination may have the opportunity to rephrase his or her question. If the judge upholds the argumentative objection, the lawyer may instead ask questions such as “Did John Doe exceed the specified speed limit?”, “Did John Doe change lanes without appropriate signals?”, “How did Mr. Doe react to your comments about his driving” or “Did you feel unsafe when you were a passenger in the car driven by John Doe?” In a case where this doctor had great references and provided very good testimony for the defense, I believe the case depended entirely on the testimony of this medical expert and the games he played. For example, a lawyer would ask an argumentative question if he asked: If you yell at this person, does that mean you have to be very aggressive? A judge may or may not accept the appeal and ask the lawyer to continue. Even if a judge rejects the objection, a lawyer should be careful, as a jury may react badly to such tactics. As soon as a lawyer raises an objection, the judge makes a decision. If a judge confirms the objection, it means that he agrees with the objection and does not authorize the question, testimony or evidence.

If the judge overturns the objection, it means that he or she disagrees with the objection and authorizes the question, testimony or evidence. The judge may also allow the lawyer to rephrase the question to correct what was offensive. It was clear to the jury that this doctor was playing games. They immediately realized that he was playing word games and semantics. In fact, I believe that because this doctor was so antagonistic and refused to accept the most basic medical statements, the jury turned him against him. Such questions may be admissible and do not require legal expertise for a layman to answer, allowing the lawyer to testify about John Doe`s driving habits without explicitly using the legal term negligence. Harassment of a witness by a lawyer during questioning, when a witness is exposed to embarrassing or mocking questions where an answer is not expected and serves as an argument that is asked as a question, for example who would believe words coming out of your mouth? “Doctor, would you agree that it is good medical practice to keep accurate records? In the U.S. legal system, the argumentative is a conclusive objection raised in response to a question that leads a witness to draw conclusions from the facts of the case. [1] A former common law offence, but now a perfectly legitimate group practice. In fact, such a law today would not only be an unnecessary restriction on trade, but would likely drive up prices, not lower them. I will inform you that I have been practicing here in New York for over 26 years and have dealt with accident and medical malpractice cases and have never seen a lawyer with a live badger beat a witness with him in a trial. It just doesn`t happen.

Unpleasant for the witness. Unpleasant for the jury. Unpleasant for anyone who sits down and observes the process. You can often feel the tension in the air. This witness is a hostile witness in all respects. A common misconception is that argumentative questions are only intended to get a witness to argue with the examiner. This error is due to a misunderstanding of the word “argument”. Argument can mean “a series of persuasive statements” (the meaning of the law discussed in this article), as well as a “verbal battle or disagreement.” .