Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 102,104 (click to see context) from:
* On ''{{The Good Wife}}'', Alicia Florick is up against her former boss Stern. Stern is in the early stages of Alzheimer's Disease, something he's only told Alicia and she can't tell anyone else due to him being her client at the time. She gets around this by repeatedly raising frivilous objections during one of Stern's cross-examinations, causing him to become confused and forget what he was going to ask next.
** Wait, he's her opponent ''and'' her client? What?
*** He was her client at the time he confided about the disease. The incident is from a later episode.
** Wait, he's her opponent ''and'' her client? What?
*** He was her client at the time he confided about the disease. The incident is from a later episode.
to:
* On ''{{The Good Wife}}'', Alicia Florick is up against her former boss Stern. Stern is in the early stages of Alzheimer's Disease, something he's only told Alicia and she can't tell anyone else due to him being because he told her client at the time. a previous time when he was her client. She gets around this by repeatedly raising frivilous frivolous objections during one of Stern's cross-examinations, causing him to become confused and forget what he was going to ask next.
** Wait, he's her opponent ''and'' her client? What?
*** He was her client at the time he confided about the disease. The incident is from a later episode.next.
** Wait, he's her opponent ''and'' her client? What?
*** He was her client at the time he confided about the disease. The incident is from a later episode.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
How about this example from The Krytos Trap?
Added DiffLines:
* Subtle example in ''[[XWingSeries The Krytos Trap]]''. The setting is a military trial, where Tycho Celchu has been charged with the murder of Corran Horn. Commander Ettyk, the prosecutor, is direct-examining a witness (Iella Wessiri) who had partnered with Horn in the past, and who had also participated in the retaking of Coruscant with Horn. The direct examination concluded more or less as follows:
--->'''Ettyk:''' So you had no reason to believe that Corran Horn might be mistaken?
--->'''Wessiri:''' Actually, there was one thing that bothered me.
--->'''Ettyk:''' ...Move to strike as nonresponsive[[hottip:*:According to Wikipedia, a "nonresponsive" objection is made because the witness answered a question that was not asked; this was not the case here.]], Admiral.
--->'''Ackbar:''' No, Commander, you asked one more question than you should have, and now you must deal with the consequences.
** Ettyk later admitted that she had been reaching, and knew it, making it an example of this trope.
--->'''Ettyk:''' So you had no reason to believe that Corran Horn might be mistaken?
--->'''Wessiri:''' Actually, there was one thing that bothered me.
--->'''Ettyk:''' ...Move to strike as nonresponsive[[hottip:*:According to Wikipedia, a "nonresponsive" objection is made because the witness answered a question that was not asked; this was not the case here.]], Admiral.
--->'''Ackbar:''' No, Commander, you asked one more question than you should have, and now you must deal with the consequences.
** Ettyk later admitted that she had been reaching, and knew it, making it an example of this trope.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** TruthInTelevision: That is a valid objection. An attorney can object to a narrative response if it goes beyond what was asked.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* In ''TalesOfMonkeyIsland'', Guybrush has the option of doing this while on trial; it's one of many ways to anger the judge (necessary to solve a puzzle).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
posted trimmed version of pic which hopefully fits on page better.
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
[[quoteright:253:[[BloomCounty http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/opusobjects02_6898.png]]]]
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
replaced duplicated pic (StockLegalPhrases)
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
[[quoteright:256:[[AceAttorney http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/objection.gif]]]]
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 41 (click to see context) from:
* ''A Civil Action'' combines this with IronicEchoCut. One of the defense attorneys, who is also a law professor, is shown giving a lecture to his students:
to:
* ''A Civil Action'' ''ACivilAction'' combines this with IronicEchoCut. One of the defense attorneys, who is also a law professor, is shown giving a lecture to his students:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
Not solely a subset of {{Courtroom Antic}}s; is also commonly used in normal dialogue. Compare ITakeOffenseToThatLastOne.
to:
Not solely a subset of {{Courtroom Antic}}s; is also commonly used in normal dialogue. Compare ITakeOffenseToThatLastOne. Intentionally excessive use of this (see Real Life below) can be a type of ChewbaccaDefense.
Changed line(s) 150,152 (click to see context) from:
* Los Angeles defense attorney Irving Kanarek, whose most famous client was Charles Manson, was infamous for dragging cases out with long speeches and continuous objections. He once objected when a witness on the stand was asked to identify himself; when asked the grounds, Kanarek stated that since the witness had first heard his name from his parents, asking him to give his name was hearsay.
** In the Manson trial, Kanarek's closing statement (for ''one'' defendant out of four) consumed seven court days of time. The jury actually sent a note to the bailiff asking for [=NoDoz=] for themselves and sleeping pills for Kanarek.
** Also in the Manson trial, prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi actually got objections sustained to questions as being "ridiculous", "nonsensical", or repeated "ad nauseam".
** In the Manson trial, Kanarek's closing statement (for ''one'' defendant out of four) consumed seven court days of time. The jury actually sent a note to the bailiff asking for [=NoDoz=] for themselves and sleeping pills for Kanarek.
** Also in the Manson trial, prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi actually got objections sustained to questions as being "ridiculous", "nonsensical", or repeated "ad nauseam".
to:
* Los Angeles defense attorney Irving Kanarek, whose most famous client was Charles Manson, was infamous for [[ChewbaccaDefense dragging cases out with long speeches and continuous objections.objections]]. He once objected when a witness on the stand was asked to identify himself; when asked the grounds, Kanarek stated that since the witness had first heard his name from his parents, asking him to give his name was hearsay.
** In the Manson trial, Kanarek's closing statement (for ''one'' defendant out offour) ''four'') consumed seven court days of time. The jury actually sent a note to the bailiff asking for [=NoDoz=] for themselves and sleeping pills for Kanarek.
** Also in the Manson trial, prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi actually got objections sustained to questionsas for being "ridiculous", "nonsensical", or repeated "ad nauseam".
** In the Manson trial, Kanarek's closing statement (for ''one'' defendant out of
** Also in the Manson trial, prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi actually got objections sustained to questions
Changed line(s) 166 (click to see context) from:
* Common in Mock Trial competitions, where people will often object simply to break the flow of someone's questioning. Or where they're sure that there is an objection to be made, but can't quite remember which one it is until too late.
to:
* Common in Mock Trial competitions, where people will often object [[ChewbaccaDefense simply to break the flow of someone's questioning.questioning]]. Or where they're sure that there is an objection to be made, but can't quite remember which one it is until too late.
Changed line(s) 170,171 (click to see context) from:
-->'''Attorney:''' It's... it's... the question's *** KING RETARDED.
-->'''Judge:''' ... you know what, I'll sustain that. (Turns to opposing counsel.) It's otherwise known as "Prejudicial" question.[[hottip:*:Basically, a question where the answer is so obvious the question is irrelevant, e.g. "Is the sky blue?" "Is the Pope Catholic?"]]
-->'''Judge:''' ... you know what, I'll sustain that. (Turns to opposing counsel.) It's otherwise known as "Prejudicial" question.[[hottip:*:Basically, a question where the answer is so obvious the question is irrelevant, e.g. "Is the sky blue?" "Is the Pope Catholic?"]]
to:
-->'''Attorney:''' It's... it's... the question's *** KING ****KING RETARDED.
-->'''Judge:''' ... you know what, I'll sustain that. (Turns to opposing counsel.) It's otherwise known as a "Prejudicial" question.[[hottip:*:Basically, a question where the answer is so obvious the question is irrelevant, e.g. "Is the sky blue?" "Is the Pope Catholic?"]]
-->'''Judge:''' ... you know what, I'll sustain that. (Turns to opposing counsel.) It's otherwise known as a "Prejudicial" question.[[hottip:*:Basically, a question where the answer is so obvious the question is irrelevant, e.g. "Is the sky blue?" "Is the Pope Catholic?"]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Apollo Justice once gave us
--> '''''[[color:red:Objection!]]''''' Th...that's just dumb!
** This was a fairly accurate assessment of the prosecution's suggestion, but it could have been phrased better.
--> '''''[[color:red:Objection!]]''''' Th...that's just dumb!
** This was a fairly accurate assessment of the prosecution's suggestion, but it could have been phrased better.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 113,114 (click to see context) from:
*** During [[spoiler:3-5's segment where you play as him]], one of his [[spoiler:default "losing"]] objections is a hilarious ChewbaccaDefense.
** Franziska does this again in ''Justice For All''. "'''''[[color:red:Objection!]]''''' I...object...for the sake of objecting!"
** Franziska does this again in ''Justice For All''. "'''''[[color:red:Objection!]]''''' I...object...for the sake of objecting!"
to:
** Franziska does this again in ''Justice For All''. "'''''[[color:red:Objection!]]''''' I...object...for the sake of objecting!"
Changed line(s) 118 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Edgeworth''': I, myself, never let an opportunity to shout "Objection!" pass me by!
to:
** Franziska does this again in ''Justice For All''. "'''''[[color:red:Objection!]]''''' I...object...for the sake of objecting!"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 117,118 (click to see context) from:
** Really, Edgeworth in general is this trope:
--->'''Edgewirth''': I, myself, never let an opportunity to shout "Objection!" pass me by!
--->'''Edgewirth''': I, myself, never let an opportunity to shout "Objection!" pass me by!
to:
** Really, Edgeworth in general is this trope:
--->'''Edgewirth''':trope, as he himself says:
--->'''Edgeworth''': I, myself, never let an opportunity to shout "Objection!" pass me by!
--->'''Edgewirth''':
--->'''Edgeworth''': I, myself, never let an opportunity to shout "Objection!" pass me by!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 117,118 (click to see context) from:
* In Case 3-2, Godot issues an objection which consists solely of [[spoiler: throwing a cup of hot coffee in Phoenix's face.]]
* 'I, myself, never let an opportunity to shout "Objection!' pass me by!'
* 'I, myself, never let an opportunity to shout "Objection!' pass me by!'
to:
--->'''Edgewirth''': I, myself, never let an opportunity to shout "Objection!" pass me by!
** In Case 3-2, Godot issues an objection which consists solely of [[spoiler: throwing a cup of hot coffee in Phoenix's face.
* 'I, myself, never let an opportunity to shout "Objection!' pass me by!'
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 110 (click to see context) from:
** During the third case, as Wendy Oldbag [[MotorMouth rattles on about her life]], Edgeworth eventually cuts her off with "'''''[[color:red:Objection!]]''''' I... object to the witness's talkativeness." [[SubvertedTrope The judge sustains]].
to:
** During the third case, as Wendy Oldbag [[MotorMouth rattles on about her life]], Edgeworth eventually cuts her off with "'''''[[color:red:Objection!]]''''' O-objection! I... object to the witness's talkativeness." [[SubvertedTrope The judge sustains]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** He was her client at the time he confided about the disease. The incident is from a later episode.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
--> "[[CatchPhrase OBJECTION!]] I object! [[TropeNamer ...That was... objectionable!]]"
to:
--> "[[CatchPhrase OBJECTION!]] I object! [[TropeNamer ...[[TropeNamer That was... objectionable!]]"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 152 (click to see context) from:
-->'''Attorney:''' No, I wish to swat him in the head with it. The [Rules of Procedure] clearly state that a deposition may be used for "any purpose" in court, and this is the purpose for which I want to use it.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Full Version of the "I wish to hit opponent with the deposition" story
Changed line(s) 150,154 (click to see context) from:
-->'''Attorney:''' Your honor, I wish to hit opposing counsel with the deposition transcript.
-->'''Judge:''' You mean you want to read it?
-->'''Attorney:''' No, I wish to hit him with it. The Rules of Procedure clearly state that a deposition may be used for "any purpose" in court.
-->'''Judge:''' I'll allow it. (Attorney whacks opposing counsel with the transcript)
-->'''Opposing counsel:''' I object, your honor.
-->'''Judge:''' You mean you want to read it?
-->'''Attorney:''' No, I wish to hit him with it. The Rules of Procedure clearly state that a deposition may be used for "any purpose" in court.
-->'''Judge:''' I'll allow it. (Attorney whacks opposing counsel with the transcript)
-->'''Opposing counsel:''' I object, your honor.
to:
-->'''Judge:''' You mean
-->'''Attorney:''' No, I wish to
-->'''Judge:'''
-->'''Judge:''' There being no objection, you may proceed.
-->'''Ms Olschner:''' Thank you your honor. (she swats Mr. Buck in the head with
-->'''Opposing counsel:''' I object, your honor.
-->'''Mr. Buck:''' But Judge...
-->'''Judge:''' Next witness.
-->'''Mr. Buck:''' We object!
Added DiffLines:
**This is actually in this troper's civil procedure casebook, including the names of the lawyers. (Yeazal, 7th ed.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 161 (click to see context) from:
-->'''Judge:''' ... you know what, I'll sustain that. (Turns to opposing counsel.) It's otherwise known as "Prejudicial" question.
to:
-->'''Judge:''' ... you know what, I'll sustain that. (Turns to opposing counsel.) It's otherwise known as "Prejudicial" question.[[hottip:*:Basically, a question where the answer is so obvious the question is irrelevant, e.g. "Is the sky blue?" "Is the Pope Catholic?"]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Wait, he's her opponent ''and'' her client? What?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 77 (click to see context) from:
*** Ironically, he DID have cause to object here, he just said it in a rather amusing manner.
to:
*** Ironically, he DID have cause to object here, he just said neglected to actually give the grounds. The judge presumably considered the objection obvious enough to sustain it in a rather amusing manner.without clarification.
Added DiffLines:
* An [[DidNotDoTheResearch accidental]] one in ''LawAndOrderSVU'', Novak objects that the lawyer is leading the witness on cross-examination. This is allowable and expected. The witness already told their story on direct, the opposing counsel is now giving their side. In some cross-examinations the only word the lawyer wants to hear from their witness is "Yes" as they confirm what's being said.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
-->'''Fletcher''': Because it's devastating to my case!
to:
-->'''Fletcher''': [[CannotTellALie Because it's devastating to my case! case!]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
--> "[[CatchPhrase OBJECTION!]] I object! [[TropeNamer ...That was... objectionable!]]"
-->-- '''[[TheRival Miles Edgeworth]]''', ''[[AceAttorney Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney]]''
-->-- '''[[TheRival Miles Edgeworth]]''', ''[[AceAttorney Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney]]''
Deleted line(s) 10,12 (click to see context) :
--> "[[CatchPhrase OBJECTION!]] I object! [[TropeNamer ...That was... objectionable!]]"
-->-- '''[[TheRival Miles Edgeworth]]''', ''[[AceAttorney Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney]]''
-->-- '''[[TheRival Miles Edgeworth]]''', ''[[AceAttorney Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney]]''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 140,141 (click to see context) from:
[[/folder]
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[folder:Western Animation]]
* In one episode of ''[[Duckman]]'', Bernice is testifying as to Duckman's character.
-->'''Cornfed''': Objection!
-->'''King Chicken''': On what grounds?
-->'''Cornfed''': The need to distract the jury from hearing the truth.
[[/folder]
* In one episode of ''[[Duckman]]'', Bernice is testifying as to Duckman's character.
-->'''Cornfed''': Objection!
-->'''King Chicken''': On what grounds?
-->'''Cornfed''': The need to distract the jury from hearing the truth.
[[/folder]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
[[AceAttorney http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/objection.gif]]
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:
--> "I object! [[TropeNamer ...That was... objectionable!]]"
to:
--> "I "[[CatchPhrase OBJECTION!]] I object! [[TropeNamer ...That was... objectionable!]]"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
--> "I object! [[TropeNamer ...That was... objectionable!]]"
-->-- '''[[TheRival Miles Edgeworth]]''', ''[[AceAttorney Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney]]''
-->-- '''[[TheRival Miles Edgeworth]]''', ''[[AceAttorney Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney]]''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* On ''{{The Good Wife}}'', Alicia Florick is up against her former boss Stern. Stern is in the early stages of Alzheimer's Disease, something he's only told Alicia and she can't tell anyone else due to him being her client at the time. She gets around this by repeatedly raising frivilous objections during one of Stern's cross-examinations, causing him to become confused and forget what he was going to ask next.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 56 (click to see context) from:
* The illustrated version of ''[[{{Discworld}} The Wee Free Men]]'' includes a transcript of the case "Princess Sandy of Brokenrock vs. Fairy Nettle". When the wicked witch is mentioned, ''her'' lawyer jumps up and says "I object!" on the grounds she isn't actually wicked. The judge responds "Oh good. I was hoping someone would."
to:
* The illustrated version of ''[[{{Discworld}} The Wee Free Men]]'' ''Discworld/TheWeeFreeMen'' includes a transcript of the case "Princess Sandy of Brokenrock vs. Fairy Nettle". When the wicked witch is mentioned, ''her'' lawyer jumps up and says "I object!" on the grounds she isn't actually wicked. The judge responds "Oh good. I was hoping someone would."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* 'I, myself, never let an opportunity to shout "Objection!' pass me by!'