In California, an objection to an argumentative question is made when a lawyer believes that the question posed to a witness is not seeking factual information but rather attempting to argue or provoke a response from the witness. This type of question typically challenges the witness’s credibility or attempts to force them into taking a specific position, which is improper during direct or cross-examination. For instance, an argumentative question might make an assumption about the facts or press the witness into agreeing with an interpretation that is more about the lawyer’s argument than about eliciting truthful testimony. The purpose of objecting to such questions is to prevent attorneys from using their questioning to make arguments or statements to the jury.
The judge will evaluate whether the question is truly argumentative or whether it is simply a part of the attorney’s strategy to test the witness’s reliability or perspective. If the question is deemed to be argumentative, the judge will sustain the objection, and the attorney will be required to rephrase the question in a neutral way that seeks factual information. However, if the question is ruled acceptable, the witness may be asked to respond. The objection to argumentative questions helps ensure that the trial remains focused on the presentation of facts and evidence, not on unnecessary persuasion or confrontation.
