Legal Definitions - continuing objection

A continuing objection is a procedural tool used in court to efficiently preserve a legal challenge to a recurring line of questioning or evidence. Instead of an attorney having to voice the same objection repeatedly every time a particular type of question is asked or a specific topic is brought up, they can ask the judge to allow a "continuing objection." If granted, this single objection covers all subsequent instances of that specific issue, saving court time and ensuring the attorney's legal point is recorded for potential appeal, without constant interruption.

• Example 1: Challenging the Relevance of Character Evidence

  During a trial for embezzlement, the prosecution begins asking a witness about the defendant's past gambling habits from five years ago. The defense attorney objects, arguing that this information is irrelevant to the current charges. The judge overrules the objection, allowing the prosecution to proceed. Knowing the prosecution intends to ask several more questions about the defendant's historical gambling, the defense attorney requests a continuing objection to all further questions regarding the defendant's past gambling activities, asserting that all such inquiries are irrelevant and prejudicial.

  How this illustrates the term: Instead of interrupting to object to each individual question about the defendant's old gambling habits, the defense attorney makes one request for a continuing objection. If the judge grants it, every subsequent question on that specific topic is automatically considered objected to on the grounds of relevance, saving court time and preserving the issue for a potential appeal without repeated interruptions.

• Example 2: Objecting to Leading Questions on a Specific Event

  In a personal injury case, the plaintiff's attorney is questioning their own witness about the details of the accident. The defense attorney notices that the plaintiff's attorney is repeatedly asking leading questions (questions that suggest the desired answer) about how the accident occurred. The defense attorney objects to the first leading question, and the judge overrules it. Anticipating more leading questions on the same critical event, the defense attorney requests a continuing objection to any further leading questions concerning the mechanics of the accident.

  How this illustrates the term: By requesting a continuing objection, the defense attorney avoids having to object to every single leading question about the accident's specifics. If the judge allows it, the defense's objection to leading questions on that particular topic is preserved throughout the remainder of that line of questioning, streamlining the process.

• Example 3: Disputing the Admissibility of Hearsay from a Specific Source

  During a contract dispute, a witness begins testifying about what a third-party consultant told them regarding the contract's terms. The opposing counsel objects, arguing that the consultant's statements are inadmissible hearsay. The judge overrules the objection, believing an exception to the hearsay rule applies. Knowing the witness will likely recount several more statements made by that same consultant, the opposing counsel requests a continuing objection to all testimony relaying statements made by the consultant, maintaining that all such statements constitute inadmissible hearsay.

  How this illustrates the term: The attorney makes a single request for a continuing objection to all statements attributed to the specific consultant. If granted, this means they don't need to object each time the witness mentions something the consultant said, yet their legal challenge to the admissibility of that entire category of evidence is fully preserved for the record.