DOCSLIB.ORG

Leading Questions: a Categorization System Scott and Steward

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Leading Questions: a Categorization System Scott and Steward Leading Questions: A Categorization System Scott and Steward LEADING QUESTIONS: A CATEGORIZATION SYSTEM CLIFFORD D. SCOTT, University of Arkansas—Fort Smith MICHELLE D. STEWARD, Wake Forest University Marketing researchers agree that questionnaire design and specifically, leading questions, can be a significant contributor to total error in survey research. In challenges to research, leading questions are often a central issue. Interestingly, marketing literature on leading questions is mostly circular and lacking in a framework to identify and a process to remedy leading questions. This article focuses on: (a.) current treatment of leading questions and pitfalls of existing definitions; (b.) a synthesis of types of leading questions grounded in semiotics literature which leads to; (c.) a categorization of dimensions in which questions can be assessed to identify and remedy any leading nature of the question; and (d.) a new definition of a leading question. The value of the categorization lies in providing a framework allowing marketing researchers to better comprehend, diagnose and treat leading questions. INTRODUCTION oracle of truth, is subject to creating research to suit the interests of well-heeled contributors A leading question, or a question that “gives the (Goldberg, 2002; Crossen, 1994; Soley, 1995). respondent a strong cue or expectation as to People are deeply skeptical of reported research how to answer,” have long been recognized as a results because they fear the researchers are not significant source of error in survey research asking the right questions and may be (Burns & Bush, 2010, p. 309). Surveys are manipulating the wording of questions to get designed to understand the truth about the the responses they want (Mann & Dionne, views and the behaviors of people who can 2003). Why shouldn’t they be skeptical? ultimately improve societal well-being. Beyond the creation of more skeptical Leading questions can misdirect marketing consumers, distortion on a brand’s marketing actions that are based on the results of surveys. strategy can occur due to leading questions that For example, in an attempt to illustrate the misdirect the actions of the brand. trendiness of Levi’s jeans, the company ran an advertisement stating that ninety percent of Years ago, Raymond (1977) noted how college students say Levi’s 501 are “in” on questioning can bias respondents. Indeed, in college campuses. What the ads failed to reveal, what became one of the most controversial FTC however, is that the research question gave cases regarding advertising claims, one of the students a list of things from which to choose significant points made to question the research and Levi’s 501 was the only blue jean listed. supporting the FTC’s position was based upon Other items listed were: 1960’s-inspired leading questions (Jacoby & Szybillo, 1995). clothing, Lycra/spandex clothing and so on Opposing experts in the case each made (Utts, 2004, p. 45), allowing little opportunity credible arguments (Stewart, 1995) but it was to call anything other than Levi’s “in.” While clear there was disagreement, even among short-term gains may result from such an ad, in highly expert researchers, as to whether the the long-run Levi’s misses opportunities to questions were leading. This led Preston better know how consumers perceive their (1992) to write that we need greater clarity in products and to more significantly differentiate our survey methods issues such that at least the brand from competitors. experts may agree on proper/improper methods. It has been well-documented that the media While there may be suspicion that leading themselves and even the ivory-towered questions were used, rarely does a final user of university system, long viewed as the last survey research see the actual questions used to collect the information upon which the user The Marketing Management Journal Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 80-92 may base his or her decision. In their review of Copyright © 2018, The Marketing Management Association six decades of published research about how All rights of reproduction in any form reserved consumers view advertising, Calfee and Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2018 80 Leading Questions: A Categorization System Scott and Steward Ringold (1994, p. 250) noted that the possibility intend our approach to be used sequentially or of leading questions used in the studies was a as a checklist, we do suggest that researchers limitation on the validity of the published examine all three elements (question structure, research yet there was no way to determine the content and context) on a question-by-question extent of this as the questions themselves are basis. The reality is that it may be efficient for missing from the published research (italics the researcher to approach the examination added). For a specific example, consider the process sequentially, but care should be given following question taken from an actual survey to return through the process if any changes are conducted by the National Tax Limitation made. The process holistically allows the Committee: “Do you feel that limiting taxes by researcher to apply discernment to the question law is an effective way to stop the government using the categorization in situ. In the next from picking your pocket every payday?” In sections, we identify the problems with current their discussion of this single question, definitions of leading questions and present a Churchill and Iacobucci (2005, p. 250) surmise categorization of mechanisms by which leading that “what is especially unfortunate is that it is questions are created. We conclude with a new unlikely that the questions themselves definition of leading questions that resolves the accompanied the report to Congress. Rather, it problems with current definitions. is more likely that the final report provided a summary such as ‘Ninety percent of the citizens PROBLEMS WITH favor limiting taxes.’” While there are clear CURRENT DEFINITIONS directives in the research literature that leading questions are sources of error, as noted above, A review of marketing research and public researchers are given paltry guidance when it opinion-related texts on the subject reveals the comes to identifying leading questions and/or following: most define a leading question in knowing how to remedy potentially leading terms of its impact on the respondent rather questions. than in terms of some aspect of the question itself. In terms of the familiar S-O-R (Stimulus, The purpose of this article is to provide Organism, Response) paradigm, this approach researchers with a tool to assist in this very attempts to define the “S” (question) in terms of task—a categorization of mechanisms by which the interpretation by the “O” (respondent’s questions can be assessed to determine if the reading of questioner’s intent) or in terms of the question is leading. The categorization system “R” (answer given by respondent). Note that allows a systematic review process for the definitions that follow do not state that questionnaires, to help identify, and ultimately some quality of the “S” makes it leading; it is eliminate, leading questions. defined only in terms of the respondent’s interpretation or the eventual answer given. So This categorization system helps researchers to the definitions are circular. Simply put, current identify leading questions before conducting definitions state that a question is leading if it research, thus eliminating many problems. The leads. categorization presented gives guidance to researchers, yielding survey questions that more A review of definitions (see Table 1) illustrates accurately tap into the phenomena of interest to that most fall into one of two groups: (1.) those the researcher, while reducing the systematic that emphasize the organism and (2.) those that bias that comes with leading questions. Our emphasize the response. Those emphasizing categorization strives to pinpoint those the organism (“O”) employ terminology elements within the question itself that cause it referencing human perceptions or other to be leading. The major categories are (1) internal, cognitive responses. For example, the question content, (2) question structure and (3) respondent may interpret the question as a clue question context. These three categories are (Malhotra & Peterson, 2006) or an indication broken into more specific sub-categories, (Churchill & Iacobucci, 2005) as to what allowing the researcher to carefully review their answer is desired. The respondent also may own work to spot leading questions, allowing perceive the question as a suggestion (Aaker, them to identify and eliminate the root cause of Kumar & Day, 2001) or expectation (Burns & the question’s leading quality. While we do not Bush, 2010). Again, it should be noted that 81 Marketing Management Journal, Fall 2018 Leading Questions: A Categorization System Scott and Steward TABLE 1: A Sample of Definitions of Leading Questions DEFINITIONS OF “LEADING” OR SOURCE S-O-R EMPHASIS “LOADED” QUESTIONS McDaniel & Gates, 1991 Influence people to respond in a manner that does R not accurately reflect their positions. Zaltman & Burger, 1975 Make it easier for the respondent to react in a cer- R tain way. Rubenstein, 1995, Influences or cues the respondent to some desired R, O response. Gallup & Rae, 1940 Worded in such a way as to bias the response. R, S included Moser & Kalton, 1972 By its content, structure or wording, leads the re- R, S included spondent in the direction of a certain answer. Gawiser, 1994 Use language and structure to push the respondent R, S included to a specific position. Young, 1994 Phrased in such a way that respondent answers are R, S included influenced by the question wording. Mangione, 1995 Written in such a way as to force people to answer R, S included in one direction or another. Malhotra & Peterson, 2006 One that clues the respondent to what the answer O should be. Churchill & Iacobucci, Framed to give the respondent an indication about O 2005 how he or she ‘should’ answer.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Using Leading Questions During Direct Examination
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 23 Issue 2 Article 4 Fall 1995 Using Leading Questions During Direct Examination Charles W. Ehrhardt Florida State University College of Law Stephanie J. Young Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Evidence Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles W. Ehrhardt & Stephanie J. Young, Using Leading Questions During Direct Examination, 23 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 401 (1995) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol23/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. USING LEADING QUESTIONS DURING DIRECT EXAMINATION CHARLES W. EHRHARDT* AND STEPHANIE J. YOUNG"* I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 401 II. BEFORE ADOPTION OF FLORIDA'S EVIDENCE CODE ......... 402 A. An Exception for Leading Questions on Direct Examination ................................................ 402 B. Voucher Rule Barred Impeaching a Party'sOwn Witness ....................................................... 404 III. ADOPTION OF FLORIDA'S EVIDENCE CODE ................... 405 A. Section 90.608: Impeaching an Adverse Witness... 405 B. Section 90.612(3): Use of Leading Questions ....... 406 C. 1990 Amendment to Section 90.608 ................... 408 D. Evidence Code Amendments Make Rule Unnecessary................................................
    [Show full text]
  • New York Evidentiary Foundations Randolph N
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Books 1993 New York Evidentiary Foundations Randolph N. Jonakait H. Baer E. S. Jones E. Imwinkelried Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_books Part of the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Jonakait, Randolph N.; Baer, H.; Jones, E. S.; and Imwinkelried, E., "New York Evidentiary Foundations" (1993). Books. Book 4. http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_books/4 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Books by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. New York .Evidentiary Foundations RANDOLPH N. JONAKAIT HAROLD BAER, JR. E. STEWART JONES, JR. EDWARD J. IMWINKELRIED THE MICHIE COMPANY Law Publishers CHARLOTIESVILLE, Vlli:GINIA CoPYRIGHT ~ 1H93 BY THE MICHIE COMI'ANY Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 93-77731 ISBN: 1-55834-058-0 All rights reserved. lllllllllllllllllllllllllm IIIII SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents . v Chapter 1. Introduction . 1 Chapter 2. Related Procedures .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... 11 Chapter 3. The Competency ofWitnesses .......................... 25 Chapter 4. Authentication . 45 Chapter 5. Limitations on Credibility Evidence . 99 Chapter 6. Limitations on Evidence That Is Relevant to the Merits of the Case . 129 Chapter 7. Privileges and Similar Doctrines . 155 Chapter 8. The Best Evidence Rule . 199 Chapter 9. Opinion Evidence ......................................... 225 Chapter 10. The Hearsay Rule, Its Exemptions, and Its Excep- tions ......................................................... 241 Chapter 11. Substitutes for Evidence . .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ..... ... .. 315 Index ......................................................................... 329 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary Table of Contents 111 Chapter 1. Introduction .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 · A. Introduction . 1 B. Laying a Foundation - In General . 2 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Trial Witnesses, Un-Lead the Questions
    Trial Witnesses, Un-Lead the Questions Prepared by: Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm Persuasion Strategies - a service of Holland & Hart LLP Published on www.lorman.com - May 2019 Trial Witnesses - Un-Lead the Questions, ©2019 Lorman Education Services. All Rights Reserved. Trial Witnesses, Un-Lead the Questions Written by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm When testifying, there are some situations where a “less is more” rule applies. In a deposition, for example, you don’t want to aid the other side, and will often prefer conciseness. However, when undergoing cross-examination before a jury in trial, less isn’t more…it is less. That is, if you limit yourself to simple “yes” answers, then you have less control (with your adversary choosing all the words) less power (since you’re just confirming the facts that opposing counsel has selected), and less overall usefulness to the jury (since you aren’t saying much). In a courtroom cross-examination, there is a need to find ways to talk more so that you appear to be credible and, in some ways at least, so you function as a teacher for your jury. So, how do you do that if all opposing counsel is doing is giving you statements that are turned into questions by adding, “Wouldn’t you agree…” at the start, or, “Right?” at the end? What you need to do is mentally convert the language of those questions so they’re no longer leading questions. They may be asking you, “You never tested the product with actual consumers, did you?” but the question you want to answer is more like, “What did you do to test the product?” The broader version is better for ensuring that you aren’t just a rubber-stamp for your adversary’s selective claims, but instead get to share your side of the story.
    [Show full text]
  • Impeachment and Rehabilitation Under the Maryland Rules of Evidence: an Attorney's Guide Paul W
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 24 Article 4 Issue 1 Fall 1994 1994 Impeachment and Rehabilitation under the Maryland Rules of Evidence: An Attorney's Guide Paul W. Grimm Barton & Wilmer, LLP Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Grimm, Paul W. (1994) "Impeachment and Rehabilitation under the Maryland Rules of Evidence: An Attorney's Guide," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 24: Iss. 1, Article 4. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol24/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMPEACHMENT AND REHABILITATION UNDER THE MARYLAND RULES OF EVIDENCE: AN ATTORNEY'S GUIDE Paul W. Grimmt Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ............................................... 96 II. O VERVIEW ....................................................... 97 III. RELEVANCE AND RELATED CONCEPTS- RULES 5-401, 5-402, 5-403 ................................... 99 IV. CHARACTER EVIDENCE AND IMPEACHMENT CONCEPTS-RULE 5-404 ................................... 102 V. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS AND HEARSAY- RU LES 5-104, 5-806 ............................................ 103 VI. IMPEACHMENT IN GENERAL .......................... 105 A. Who May Impeach-Rule 5-607 ...................... 105 B. Mode of Interrogation-Rule5-611 .................. 107 C. Requirement of Personal Knowledge-Rule 5- 602 ............................................................ 112 VII. PRIMARY MEANS OF IMPEACHMENT-RULE 5- 6 16 ................................................................... 114 VIII. CHARACTER FOR TRUTHFULNESS OR UN- TRUTHFULNESS-RULE 5-608 ........................... 117 A. Use of Character Witnesses ............................ 118 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Suggests Its Own Answer 2. Separate Inquiries 3. Incomprehensible
    SHORT LIST OF COMMON OBJECTIONS1 © 2013 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR TRIAL ADVOCACY OBJECTIONS TO THE FORM SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS OF THE QUESTION 1. LEADING QUESTION (611): question 1. HEARSAY (801(c)): statement, other than made by suggests its own answer the declarant while testifying at trial, offered in 2. COMPOUND QUESTION: contains 2 evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted separate inquiries Exceptions: 3. VAGUE QUESTION: Present sense impression (803(1)) incomprehensible, incomplete, or Excited utterance (802(2)) answer will be ambiguous State of mind (803(3)) 4. ARGUMENTATIVE QUESTION: asks Past recollection recorded (803(5)) the witness to accept the examiner’s Business records (803(6)) summary, inference, or conclusion Reputation as to Character (803(21), 404) rather than a fact Prior testimony (804(b)(1)) 5. NARRATIVES: question calls for a Dying Declaration (804(b)(2)) narrative answer - answer does not Statement against interest (804(b)(3)) allow opposing counsel to frame 2. RELEVANCE (401 & 402): does not make any fact objections of consequence more or less probable 6. ASKED AND ANSWERED: repeats the 3. UNFAIR PREJUDICE (403): Probative value is same question (611(a) cumulative) outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice 7. ASSUMING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: 4. IMPROPER CHARACTER EVIDENCE (404(a)(1)) contains as a predicate a statement of generally, (609) conviction, (608(b)) fact not proven untruthfulness, (608(a)) reputation: character 8. NON-RESPONSIVE ANSWER: answer evidence can’t be used to prove a person acted in does not respond to the question conformity with his or her character 5. LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE (602): Witnesses (other than experts) must testify from MAKING AN OBJECTION personal knowledge - sensory perception 6.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Form of Witness Examination
    3. FORM OF WITNESS EXAMINATION 1. Judicial Discretion The trial judge has broad discretion to control the procedure of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so that the trial furthers three goals: facilitating truth-determination, avoiding waste of time, and protecting witnesses from harassment. 2. Separation of Witnesses At the request of a party, the judge must order witnesses excluded from the courtroom so they cannot hear the testimony of others and (purposely or inadvertently) alter their own testimony to be consistent. Rule 615. The order should include a prohibition against discussing testimony outside the courtroom. The rule does not apply to parties, who may remain in the courtroom. If a party is an organization, it may designate one representative to remain in the courtroom to assist the attorney. In criminal cases, this is usually the lead detective. The judge has discretion to also allow an expert witness to remain in the courtroom and assist counsel in a complex cross-examination of the opposing expert. The victim of a crime may not be designated by the State to remain in the courtroom, but may be called as the first witness and then allowed to remain after testifying. 3. Basic Procedure The basic principle of witness testimony is that it must be presented in question-and-answer format, i.e: a. The attorney asks questions. b. The witness supplies answers. This means three things: a. The attorney must ask a question and not make statements and arguments. If the attorney makes a remark, such as "That's very odd, considering it was pitch dark outside," you may object that "This is a statement, not a question." b.
    [Show full text]
  • Objections to Questions
    Objections to Questions The party or attorney on the opposing side is asking a question of a witness or a party at a deposition or a hearing or trial. The following are possible objections that can be made to the questions he/she is asking. The objector states the objection. At a deposition, the parties can put their positions on the record. Objections are reserved for when the parties ask a judge to rule on them. At a hearing or trial, the judge asks for specifics of the objection. The objector states the basis for the objection. The judge gives the other party or attorney the opportunity to respond. The judge rules as to whether the objection is sustained or denied. If sustained, question and answer are “struck” and not to be considered by the fact-finder, be it a jury or the judge. The question, answer, and exchange will still be in the transcript of the deposition or hearing or trial, and rulings by the judge can be appealed. Argumentative question. Makes an argument rather than asks a question. Compound question. The question combines two or more different questions, but calls for a single answer. Asked and answered. Relevancy. Question has nothing to do with any part of the case. Character Relevancy is only introducible if the person’s character is an issue or shows truth/untruth. Narrative answer called for by the question. The answer would essentially relate a string of events as a story, instead of providing a clear and specific answer to a clear and specific question.
    [Show full text]
  • Leading Questions and Child Witnesses Updated June, 2011
    Leading Questions and Child Witnesses Updated June, 2011 Please Note: This area of law is highly dependant on case law to determine whether or not a state will allow the use of leading questions with child witnesses. If your state is not listed, please check for binding case law. Alabama.............................................................................................................................. 3 Ala. Code ........................................................................................................................ 3 Arizona................................................................................................................................3 ***No statutory law exists; the matter has been settled by the Supreme Court of Arizona***...................................................................................................................... 3 Arkansas.............................................................................................................................. 3 ***No statutory law exists; the matter has been settled by the Supreme Court of Arkansas***.................................................................................................................... 3 California ............................................................................................................................ 4 CAL. EVID. CODE § 767 (2011). Leading questions....................................................... 4 Colorado.............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE DIRECTIVE, NON-DIRECTIVE DIVIDE There Is a Dearth Of
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Liverpool Repository RETHINKING LEADING: THE DIRECTIVE, NON‐DIRECTIVE DIVIDE 1 RETHINKING LEADING: THE DIRECTIVE, NON-DIRECTIVE DIVIDE There is a dearth of legal and psychological consideration of leading questions during the trial process. This article argues the current approach to leading questions does not assist or promote the accuracy of witness evidence. Witness here is taken to mean anyone giving oral testimony, whether for the prosecution, defence or indeed the defendant him or herself. We advance a revised definition of leading, differentiating between directive and non-directive questions. Directive questioning is the primary mischief to eliciting accurate witness testimony; we propose here its reform. Non- directive leading is of less concern and should be the leading form open to use in cross-examination. LEADING QUESTIONS ARE IMPORTANT Leading in cross examination is the imperative of advocacy tuition.1 Its use is argued necessary to comply with certain rules of evidence, for example, that stipulated in Browne v Dunn.2 The form is taboo in examination-in- chief to elicit all but mundane information. The leading question has, The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers and particularly to Professor Penny Cooper for her comments on a previous draft of the paper. 1 See, eg, Iain Morley, The Devil’s Advocate, 2nd edn (2009), pp. 158–9; Thomas A. Mauet & Les A McCrimmon, Fundamentals of Trial Technique, 3rd edn (2011), pp. 199–200 and Peter Murphy, Evidence and advocacy, 4th edn (1994) London: Blackstone Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Examination: Some Evidentiary and Practical Considerations
    University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review Volume 9 Issue 2 Article 2 1986 Direct Examination: Some Evidentiary and Practical Considerations W. Dent Gitchel Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview Part of the Evidence Commons, and the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation W. Dent Gitchel, Direct Examination: Some Evidentiary and Practical Considerations, 9 U. ARK. LITTLE ROCK L. REV. 255 (1987). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview/vol9/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review by an authorized editor of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DIRECT EXAMINATION: SOME EVIDENTIARY AND PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS W. Dent Gitchel* INTRODUCTION I. SOME PRELIMINARY PRACTICAL CONSIDERA- T IO N S .......................................... 258 A. Sequencing the Case .......................... 258 B. The Lawyer's Demeanor ....................... 259 1. The lawyer's physical position 2. The lawyer must listen 3. The lawyer must watch the witness C. The Interrogative Dialogue ..................... 261 II. THE REQUIREMENT TO ASK NONLEADING QU ESTIO N S .................................... 263 A . Exceptions ................................... 264 1. The hostile witness 2. The child witness 3. The witness whose recollection is exhausted 4. Preliminary and undisputed matters B. What is a Leading Question, Anyway? . 268 III. A BASIC OUTLINE FOR DIRECT EXAMINATION 269 A. Introduce the W itness ......................... 269 B. Accredit the W itness ......................... 269 C. Position the Witness in the Action .............. 270 D. Elicit the Witness' Information ................. 270 E . Q uit .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mock Trial Simplified Rules of Evidence
    MOCK TRIAL SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE Criminal trials are conducted using strict rules of evidence to promote fairness. To participate in a Mock Trial, you need to know its rules of evidence. The California Mock Trial program bases its Mock Trial Simplified Rules of Evidence on the California Evidence Code. Studying the rules will prepare you to make timely objections, avoid pitfalls in your own presentations, and understand some of the difficulties that arise in actual court trials. The purpose of using rules of evidence in the competition is to structure the presentation of testimony to resemble a real trial. Almost every fact stated in the materials will be admissible under the rules of evidence. All evidence will be admitted unless an attorney objects. To promote the educational objectives of this program, students are restricted to the use of a select number of evidentiary rules in conducting the trial. Objections It is the responsibility of the party opposing the evidence to prevent its admission by a timely and specific objection. Objections not raised in a timely manner are waived, or given up. An effective objection is designed to keep inadmissible testimony, or testimony harmful to your case, from being admitted. A single objection may be more effective than several objections. Attorneys can, and should, pay attention to objections that need to be made to questions and those that need to be made to answers. Remember, the quality of an attorney’s objections is always more important than the quantity of the objections. For the purposes of this competition, teams will be permitted to use only certain types of objections.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Board of Bar Examiners ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD of the SUPREME COURT of FLORIDA
    Florida Board of Bar Examiners ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Florida Bar Examination Study Guide and Selected Answers February 2014 July 2014 This Study Guide is published semiannually with essay questions from two previously administered examinations and sample answers. Future scheduled release dates: August 2015 and March 2016 No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written consent of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners. Copyright 2015 by Florida Board of Bar Examiners All rights reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... i PART I – ESSAY QUESTIONS AND SELECTED ANSWERS ...................................... 1 ESSAY EXAMINATION INSTRUCTIONS ....................................................................... 2 FEBRUARY 2014 BAR EXAMINATION – FAMILY LAW ......................................... 3 FEBRUARY 2014 BAR EXAMINATION – FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ...... 8 FEBRUARY 2014 BAR EXAMINATION – REAL PROPERTY/FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/ETHICS ......................................................................... 13 JULY 2014 BAR EXAMINATION – CONTRACTS/UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE/ETHICS ....................................................................................................... 18 JULY 2014 BAR EXAMINATION – TORTS/CONTRACTS/ETHICS ...................... 26 JULY 2014 BAR EXAMINATION – TRUSTS ........................................................
    [Show full text]