History Main / StockLegalPhrases

** There's also a ''proviso'': if the prosecutor can prove that the illegally obtained evidence would eventually be discovered legally anyway ("inevitable discovery"), they can get it re-admitted. If the police attacked a suspect until he admitted where the murder weapon was hidden in the park, and the weapon was therefore inadmissible, if the prosecutor can show that the police were ''already'' combing the park looking for that particular murder weapon, and it wasn't hidden but easily seen, they can contest the weapon being thrown out. Naturally, this is very difficult to prove.

** "Hearsay" (testifying about what someone else said they saw, instead of what you saw yourself). Hearsay is allowed in certain conditions. Dying Declarations (the last words of a person who ''knows'' they're dying) are popular exceptions. Reading in pre-trial discovery testimony is a much harder prospect, but is allowed in certain cases where the witness has testified before the trial itself and is now unavailable due to unforeseeable events (death, usually), though it can also be (and more often is) used to impeach the witness (i.e. "Interesting you say ABC now. Why do you say that, when you said XYZ at your deposition?"). Also, interestingly, the statements of a party to a case are not considered hearsay...when introduced by the other side.
** "Assumes facts not in evidence" (asking a question [[ManyQuestionsFallacy with a built-in assumption, like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet]]?")
** "Prejudicial" (testimony that would cause the jury to dislike the defendant enough that they might chose to convict him, even though it doesn't really go to prove guilt. For instance, the fact that the defendant has a criminal record.) In RealLife, objecting that something was "prejudicial" would make the judge laugh and say, "of course it is, that's why he's introducing it." The objection is "the prejudicial value substantially outweighs the probative (proof) value."
** "Badgering the witness" (attacking the witness in order to confuse or browbeat them)

** "Witness is not an expert" (Witnesses can only state facts, like what they saw, and certain limited opinions about matters of common experience, like whether someone was drunk.[[note]]This kind of "lay opinion" evidence is how cops would get DWI convictions before the invention of the breathalyzer, and it still is when the breathalyzer is broken or was improperly calibrated. Interestingly, most jurisdictions do not recognize lay opinion evidence for drug intoxication, creating an entire police specialization in cops trained to recognize the signs of being high on various different drugs, so they can be called as expert witnesses when the police catch someone driving stoned.[[/note]] An expert witness can give opinions about other matters, like how long it was between when the victim died and when the police found them, etc.). Getting someone qualified as an expert is either an easy process (a few questions and then asking the court to recognize their expertise), or not contested (prosecutor and defense counsel agrees to the expertise beforehand, and the court is so notified).
** "The Prosecution/Defense is leading the witness" (The lawyer is asking questions in such a way that he is feeding facts to the witness or otherwise indicating what answer he wants the witness to give.) Note that during cross-examination, leading is generally allowed, on the grounds that the person testifying is not on the side of the lawyer doing the questioning, and might need some additional pointers to reach the conclusions needed. In British trials, this might be substituted with a less formal admonition by the opposing barrister directly to their counterpart along the lines of "don’t lead." See hostile witness below.
** "Relevance" (the lawyer is asking questions that have little to no bearing on the scope of the case)
** "Speculation" (the lawyer is asking the witness to essentially guess about something: "What did it look like the victim did for a living?")
** "The witness is not on trial here!" (aka stop grandstanding for the jury. The defense is allowed certain leeway to question a prosecution witness, but accusing them of the crime is usually right out--the main exception being when the defense is explicitly that the defendant didn't do it, this specific other person did, and the defendant is being framed.)
** "Irrelevant" or "immaterial": the question or statement has nothing to do with the case at hand.
** "Beyond the scope" (during cross-examination, the lawyer asks the witness a question about a topic not covered in direct examination. Can also be used during redirect in regards to a topic not brought up during cross.)

* "Withdrawn" (Said by an attorney to supposedly retract a statement before it is stricken from the record.) In most cases in RealLife, simply saying "withdrawn" isn't enough. You could be subject to penalties or fines. If you have a reputation for constantly making inflammatory statements (see [[Franchise/LawAndOrder Jack McCoy]]), you won't have any leeway at all, and you're likely to hurt your case by trying to pull this off. You'll also push yourself closer and closer to mistrial with each offense. It is also used in a less confrontational context when a lawyer admits that opposing counsel's technical objection to a question (usually in the wording, and most usually that the question is leading) is correct; this is done to show the judge or opposing counsel the courtesy of not picking needless fights, and is usually followed by a more carefully-worded version of the same question.

* "Order in the courtroom!" The Judge says this while banging a gavel. Disruption of the order in the courtroom might result in expulsion from said room, or even being held in contempt. This is mostly American. In more comedic works, one can expect someone to respond to this with [[IncrediblyLamePun a food order.]]

* "Does the defendant plead guilty or not guilty?" / "How does the defendant plead?"

* "May I approach the bench?", or the shorter "Approach, your honour?". In Canada lawyers can do this without asking, but in most other Commonwealth jurisdictions and the United States you must ask, and be told that you may in fact approach, before you're allowed to do that.[[note]]In the US, f you enter the Well without permission, [[WebVideo/LegalEagle The Bailiff will tackle you!]][[/note]] (That being said, the judge hardly ever denies permission to approach unless it would create a "traffic jam" with court staff or opposing counsel, in which case the response is usually "once so-and-so has returned to their seat.")

* "May I approach the bench?". In Canada lawyers can do this without asking, but in most other Commonwealth jurisdictions and the United States you should ask if you're allowed to do that. (That being said, the judge hardly ever denies permission to approach unless it would create a "traffic jam" with court staff or opposing counsel, in which case the response is usually "once so-and-so has returned to their seat.")

* "All rise!" Said by the bailiff when the judge(s) enter(s). (In the US). Today, many courts will only do this twice a day--once when the judge gets on the bench for the morning session at the beginning of the day and once when the judge gets on the bench for the afternoon session after lunch. If the judge takes a break during a session (whether it be to confer with the attorneys or his/her law clerk, to consult another judge for advice, or simply to use the facilities), it's not uncommon for the bailiff to say "please remain seated" when the judge returns to keep things moving along.

[[caption-width-right:324:[[{{WebVideo/OneyPlays}} Come to the stand, state your demand!]]]]

** "Hearsay" (testifying about what someone else said they saw, instead of what you saw yourself). Hearsay is allowed in certain conditions. Dying Declarations (the last words of a person who ''knows'' they're dying) are popular exceptions. Reading in pre-trial discovery testimony is a much harder prospect, but is allowed in certain cases where the witness has testified before the trial itself and is now unavailable due to unforeseeable events (death, usually), though it can also be (and more often is) used to impeach the witness (i.e. "Interesting you say ABC now. Why do you say that, when you said XYZ at your deposition?). Also, interestingly, the statements of a party to a case are not considered hearsay...when introduced by the other side.

** "Hearsay" (testifying about what someone else said they saw, instead of what you saw yourself). Hearsay is allowed in certain conditions. Dying Declarations (the last words of a person who ''knows'' they're dying) are popular exceptions. Reading in pre-trial discovery testimony is a much harder prospect, but is allowed in certain cases where the witness has testified before the trial itself and is now unavailable due to unforeseeable events (death, usually).

** In one episode of the TheSimpsons, the lawyer Lionel Hutz brainlessly spouts this phrase after presenting confusing evidence that the man his client is suing has the "evil gene" and is therefore "innocent of not being guilty." "You rest your case?" repeats the judge incredulously. "Oh, I thought that was just a figure of speech," Hutz replies, adding "case closed."

[[caption-width-right:324:Could be worse. Antoine could have grilled her on the stand instead.]]

* "I can no longer represent my client in this matter." (Lawyer speak for, most often, "My client specifically asked me to lie to the court," although it can also mean "My client is a fucking asshole and I hate him and I just can't work with him anymore," "My client up and disappeared and I've been trying to find him for months but still have no clue where he is," or "My client refuses to pay me.")

** The United States introduced "affirming" in the 1780s to answer the objections of those whose religious convictions wouldn't let them say the "God" part or swear on Literature/TheBible, particularly Quakers (a powerful group in the powerful state of Pennsylvania).[[note]]Before this, it wouldn't be a stretch that anyone who ''wouldn't'' swear on a Bible [[BurnTheWitch might find themselves tied to a flaming piece of wood.]] Which is in itself interesting, because [[Literature/TheBible the book they're refusing to swear on]] says "Do not swear [...] any other oath, but let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.'" (Which itself was a big part of why the Quakers didn't swear things, so it comes full circle.)[[/note]] To this day, Pennsylvania is home to one of the most variant swearings/affirmings-in ("Do you swear or affirm that you will tell the truth in the matter now trying?").

** The United States introduced "affirming" in the 1780s to answer the objections of those whose religious convictions wouldn't let them say the "God" part or swear on Literature/TheBible, particularly Quakers (a powerful group in the powerful state of Pennsylvania).[[note]]Before this, it wouldn't be a stretch that anyone who ''wouldn't'' swear on a Bible [[BurnTheWitch might find themselves tied to a flaming piece of wood.]] Which is in itself interesting, because [[Literature/TheBible the book they're refusing to swear on]] says "Do not swear [...] any other oath, but let your "Yes" be "Yes," and your "No," "No."[[/note]] To this day, Pennsylvania is home to one of the most variant swearings/affirmings-in ("Do you swear or affirm that you will tell the truth in the matter now trying?").

-->-- ''WebAnimation/StrongBadEmail'', "rampage"

* "All rise!" Said by the bailiff when the judge(s) enter(s). (In the US). Today, many courts will only do this twice a day--once when the judge gets on the bench for the morning session at the beginning of the day and once when the judge gets on the bench for the afternoon session after lunch. If the judge takes a break during a session (whether it be to confer with the attorneys or his/her law clerk, to consult another judge for advice, or simply to use the facilities), it's not uncommon for the bailiff to say "please remain seated" when the judge returns to keep things moving along. [[note]] "[[Fanfic/{{SOSchip}} All ri-]]" (*is faced with a bunch of floating Pokemon who are physically unable to do so*) "[[Fanfic/{{SOSchip}} Erm... I apologize... let me rephrase that]]. [[FantasticLegalWeirdness If you can rise, rise. If you cannot because of the]] [[RealityEnsues physical limitations of your species]], [[Fanfic/{{SOSchip}} then]] [[RealisticDictionIsUnrealistic ple- please]] [[Fanfic/{{SOSchip}} remain where you are.]]" [[/note]]

* "Order in the courtroom!" The Judge says this while banging a gavel. Disruption of the order in the courtroom might result in expulsion from said room, or even being held in contempt. This is mostly American.

* "I'd like to call in a new witness." In RealLife you can't bring in an undisclosed witness, sorry. You ''can'' bring in one you disclosed but weren't able to contact until just now, with the judge's permission. (And your story had better pass the laugh test if you want that permission.) Important exception, though: in "street-level" civil hearings (usually small claims and the like, though it happens in family court, as well) where the parties are largely self-represented and do not know the law and there is usually no formal pretrial discovery, this is actually a relatively common occurrence. Since these street-level cases form the bulk of civil actions, but no lawyer appears in most of them, this may happen more often than many lawyers realize.

* "I'd like to call in a new witness." In RealLife you can't bring in an undisclosed witness, sorry. You ''can'' bring in one you disclosed but weren't able to contact until just now, with the judge's permission. (And your story had better pass the laugh test if you want that permission.) Important exception, though: in "street-level" civil hearings (usually small claims and the like, though it happens in family court, as well) where the parties are largely self-represented and do not know the law, this is actually a relatively common occurrence. Since these street-level cases form the bulk of civil actions, but no lawyer appears in most of them, this may happen more often than many lawyers realize.

* "I'd like to call in a new witness." In RealLife you can't bring in an undisclosed witness, sorry. You ''can'' bring in one you disclosed but weren't able to contact until just now, with the judge's permission. (And your story had better pass the laugh test if you want that permission.)

*** An issue of ''ComicBook/SonicTheHedgehog'' had the lawyer (in this case Antoine), going overboard in his questioning and asking the witness (Amy Rose) about overcharging a badger in joining a fan club, leading the judge (Princess Sally) to tell him to "stop badgering the witness".

[[quoteright:324:[[ComicBook/ArchieComicsSonicTheHedgehog https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/badgeringthewitness.png]]]]

-->-- ''[[WebAnimation/HomestarRunner Strong Bad Email: Rampage]]''

** There is one situation where surprise evidence is somewhat often introduced—for impeachment (i.e. evidence that undermines the credibility of the witness). Impeachment evidence is usually hearsay[[note]]Almost always, in fact, with the giant caveat that statements made by an opposing party are not considered hearsay, and very often the witness you're trying to impeach is the opposing party, testifying in support of their own case.[[/note]] and is often so weakly relevant or so prejudicial that the other side won’t bother to try to get it in (as a waste of limited time and resources). However, lawyers often keep potential impeachment in reserve in case an opposing witness "opens the door" to bringing the evidence in, typically by saying something that completely contradicts a previous statement.

** There is one situation where surprise evidence is somewhat often introduced—for impeachment (i.e. evidence that undermines the credibility of the witness). Impeachment evidence is often so weakly relevant or so prejudicial that the other side won’t bother to try to get it in (as a waste of limited time and resources). However, lawyers often keep potential impeachment in reserve in case the opposing party "opens the door" to bringing the evidence in, typically by saying something that completely contradicts a previous statement.