How about a new thread on silly objections from the other side? I'm in a juvenile trial right now (13-year-old takes loaded 9mm to school, has "kill list" carved on wall in bedroom at home) against a defense attorney with somewhat limited criminal trial experience. Yesterday, he objected during my cross-examination of a witness as follows: "Judge, I understand that you can lead on cross-examination, but this is extreme. We object to leading." I guess my questions were too leading. Any one else?

I was trying a sexual assault case just last week. In final argument, the defense lawyer was grossly misrepresenting the medical testimony. In my rebuttal, I made a statement that indicated counsel may not be very familiar with female anatomy.

The defense lawyer then stood up and said, "Objection, that is a cheap shot." Then, kind of under his breath but loud enough for the court reporter, bailiff and counsel table to hear, he said, "That's as cheap as the suit he's wearing."

I graciously withdrew my comment and told the judge that I had many cheaper suits than this one.

True story

Had a civil case some time ago, tried it to a "special judge" who we agreed on beforehand because I believed (incorrectly, as it turned out) that he had expertise in the area of the suit. So on trial day, he shows up, having just come from coffee at the other attorney's office, and admonishes us from the bench that he is performing the service at great personal sacrifice, that he could be making much more money back in his office, and that he will, for the sake of not wasting his precious time, sustain objections to "BORING." I could not believe the arrogance.

The stupidest objection I ever heard came when an officer was testifying that the suspects walked up a hill to the position where he met them. The defense attorney objected that the officer couldn't testify about them walking uphill because he hadn't been qualified as an expert on topography!

In a dwi trial in which the defense was that the swerving was caused by "cellphone-inattention," the defendant took the stand and said she hadn't brought her cellphone records with her. The humble prosecutor on cross: "Since this is your whole defense, don't you think the jury might like to see those cell phone records??? OBJECTION: "That question is nonresponsive"

SUSTAINED

From the record on a CPS case I handled on appeal (mom was being crossed and had claimed she never had any kind of CPS trouble):

Q. Didn't you, in fact, have previous contact with the child welfare authorities in Louisiana?

MOM'S ATTORNEY: Objection, your honor. That's an improper question.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Saves time. Gets to the point. Cuts down on superfluous considerations like opening the door for rebuttal or other arcane evidentiary considerations. What more need be said?

I had a trial recently where the defense attorney stood up in the middle of my closing argument and said, "Objection -- that's damaging." Duh, that's why I was saying it.

Just today, a total greenhorn attorney objected to our jury charge because of "inconsistent capitalization" of certain words.

And you all may recall the testimony of a deaf/mute witness on behalf of his drunken driver friend. The defense attorney asked, in a really loud voice, "How many beers are in a 6-pack?"

To which the witness responded by holding up 2 fingers (because he thought they had gotten to the prepared question of "How many drinks did your friend have?")

What makes it even better is that all of this is on videotape. Guilty.

I was recently in a hearing where I was bored to tears by the tedious questioning of the defense attorney. I finally stood up and objected that he was leading. He responded in a very puzzled voice that it was cross examination, and he thought he was allowed to lead. I believe the record shows my response was, "Holy cow, he's right! Never mind." I have got to learn to pay better attention!