Law Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
In the trial of Jodi Arias, during direct examination, the prosecutor objects to the details of some evidence. As a result both the prosecutor and the defence ask questions of the witness* about the validity of the evidence.
Move to admit evidence resulting in objection: https://youtu.be/1ABR8glQeG4?t=8751
I have never seen this before - is it common practice? standard procedure?
*At this point it is the defendant who is on the stand
The basis of a foundation objection is the witness does not have first hand knowledge of the physical evidence sought to be introduced. It’s perfectly normal for the court to establish if they do or do not have such knowledge.
In the linked case, the objection to the document is that it contains annotations that the witness did not make i.e. the witness did not have first hand knowledge of this annotated document. There are also some objections to parts of the document on the grounds of relevance because they deal with other people.
