An objection is a lawyer’s formal remonstration of an issue during a trial.
When a lawyer objects to something that the opposing counsel does or says, or something that the opposing counsel’s witness does or says, they are asking the court to determine whether the actions of the opposing counsel or the witness are legal and for a judge to determine if the court should officially disregard what was said or done that caused the objection.
Lawyers may attempt to object to any question, comment or action that is potentially detrimental to their case and position. The reason why a lawyer can object has to follow one of the preset reasons as set forth by jurisdictional law. Two common reasons why lawyers object to questions are when the question is irrelevant or improperly formed, or if it is based on speculation or aimed to make the party say something else beyond the question (referred to as leading).
When a lawyer objects to something during a trial, the presiding judge will give a ruling on the objection.
If the judge agrees with the legal argument made by the lawyer who objected, the judge will rule that the objection is sustained. Essentially, then, the court is not to make an official note of, or take into consideration, what was said or done by the opposing counsel.
If the judge agrees with the legal argument made by the opposing lawyer who is not objecting, the judge will rule that the objection is overruled.
Very rarely, a judge may attempt to not make a ruling on an objection in order to prevent an appeals court from being able to assess whether the judge ruled correctly.