Rules of Evidence

1.   Objection: "Relevance" （无关紧要）
    Meaning:  The question asked is not relevant to the issues in dispute(在争论中).

    Exceptions:  (a) The question is laying a foundation for evidence that will be relevant. (例外一： 抛砖引玉)
                        (b) The opposing side "opened the door" (i.e. already commented about this topic) （例外二：话匣子已经被别人打开了）

2.    Objection:  "Calls for a conclusion on the part of the witness" （冒充专家）
    Meaning:  The question is asking the witness to make a conclusion regarding various bits of information, something only an expert is permitted to do.
    Exception:  The witness has been qualified as an expert in the field, and so is permitted to make conclusions within the realm of his/her area of expertise.（例外：我是专家）
(Note that in our cases, the witnesses must be factual witnesses rather than experts, so this exception would not ordinarily make sense.)

3.    Objection:  "Calls for Speculation（n. 投机；推测；思索）" （元芳，你怎么看）
    Meaning:  The question is asking the witness to speculate on something, rather than state known facts.

4.    Objection:  "Assumes facts not in evidence（捏造事实）"
    Meaning:  The question requires the witness to assume something that has not already been shown by other testimony.

5.    Objection: "Hearsay（人云亦云）"
    Meaning:  The question is asking the witness to repeat something s/he heard from someone else.
    Due to the extremely complex number and nature of traditional hearsay exceptions, no exceptions will be permitted under these GMU rules
    (Note:  Statements offered for a purpose other than to prove their truth are not considered hearsay.  For example, a witness may testify to a statement heard that contradicts an earlier statement made by another witness, for impeachment purposes.)

  （例外：可以用来推翻别人说的话）

6.    Objection:  "Leading the Witness" （循循善诱）
    Meaning:  The question is giving the witness information about what the intended answer ought to be.
        (Example:  "So, is that when he pointed the gun at you?")
    Exception:  When dealing with an opposing party's witness, you are permitted to lead.

   （例外： 可以用来循循善诱对手）

7.    Objection:  "Asked and Answered" （复读机）
    Meaning:  The question is just reiterating something that has already been covered (perhaps to emphasize a response to the judge or jury).

8.    Objection:  "Counsel（n. 法律顾问） is testifying" (推理案情)
    Meaning:  The attorney is making factual statements rather than only asking a question.  (The attorney is not allowed to testify.)

Highlights & Practice

    1) Remember that it's very easy to assume facts not in evidence.  For example, "Why did you steal the loaf of bread?" assumes that you did, in fact, steal a loaf of bread.  More often, facts are assumed in a separate clause.  For example:  "When you went to the store, what did you buy?"  This assumes that you went to the store.  Be aware of slipping in facts, which is objectionable.

记住，假设没有证据的事实是很容易的。例如，“你为什么偷了那条面包?”假设你确实偷了一条面包。更多情况下，事实是在一个单独的条款中假定的。例如:“当你去商店的时候，你买了什么?”假设你去了商店。要注意事实的下滑，这是令人反感的。

    2)  Remember that what someone THINKS is almost never speculative.  After all, most people KNOW what they think!  They don't have to speculate!  That being said, it doesn't follow that asking someone their opinion is non-objectionable.  Most opinion questions are actually irrelevant, because -- who cares what you think?  (That is, unless there is reason to believe your thoughts are worth considering.  Unless you are an expert, though, or unless you are offering character evidence on someone you know well, it's usually irrelevant to ask what you think.)  Bottom line, if someone says "What do you think she was doing upstairs?" it's NOT speculative -- because you know what you THINK she was doing -- but it's IRRELEVANT, because what you think is beside the point.  What matters is what did you SEE or HEAR or otherwise witness.  (If you ask, instead:  "What was she doing upstairs?" THEN the proper objection is "Calls for speculation" unless you have a basis for your knowledge, either because you were an eyewitness or because you are an expert.

记住，人们的想法几乎从来不是投机的。毕竟，大多数人都知道自己在想什么!他们不需要猜测!话虽如此，但这并不是说询问别人的意见就没有问题。大多数意见问题实际上是无关紧要的，因为——谁在乎你怎么想?(也就是说，除非有理由相信你的想法值得考虑。除非你是专家，或者除非你是在为一个你很熟悉的人提供人格证据，问你的看法通常是不相关的。)底线是，如果有人说“你觉得她在楼上做什么?”这不是猜测——因为你知道你认为她在做什么——而是无关紧要的，因为你的想法与问题无关。重要的是你看到、听到或目睹了什么。(如果你问:“她在楼上做什么?”那么正确的反对意见是“要求推测”，除非你的知识有根据，或者因为你是目击者，或者因为你是专家。

    3)  Remember that "Asked and Answered" refers only to asking the SAME witness the SAME question.  You may always ask the same question to a DIFFERENT witness.  (If you couldn't do this, you could never corroborate a story!)  You may also ask the same question to the same witness IF s/he never answered it.  But if you are asking the same witness the same question, and it was previously answered, it is objectionable, even if you weren't the one who asked it previously.  (It might have been the opposing counsel, for example.)

记住，“被问过和回答过”指的只是问同样的证人同样的问题。你可以对不同的证人问同样的问题。(如果你不能这样做，你就永远无法证实一个故事!)你也可以问同一证人同样的问题，如果他/她没有回答。但如果你问同一个证人同样的问题，而且这个问题已经被回答过了，那就令人反感了，即使你不是之前问过这个问题的人。(比如，对方律师也可以。)