Here's an interesting one that I'd appreciate Kly or anyone else commenting on:

Stephen DeMocker, a former stockbroker, has been in jail here since 2009, charged with murdering his ex-wife to get out of alimony payments and collect on an insurance policy. First trial ended in mistrial. Incredible legal maneuvering has delayed start of second trial, which is now scheduled to begin in two weeks with jury selection.

The judge has served notice on both sides that he wants to expedite things. He said that he intends to impose "no speaking objections" which will require lawyers to simply state, "objection," and that's all. I assume that means that the attorneys can't explain why they're objecting, or what they're objecting to. So, I wonder: If the defense says "objection" to something, and the judge says, "overruled," can't the defense claim, on appeal, that their client didn't get a fair trial because they weren't permitted to explain to the judge what they were objecting to, and he made a judicial error prejudicial to their client?