[quote=Turnbull].

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, ced him or her to articulate a reason for the objection, rather than having the judge consider it on another basis. I've seen objectionable testimony come in where the attorney provided a faulty reason for the objection.

If the judge does not allow the parties to state reasons for the objection, it would only be considered reversible error if there was no basis for the ruling on the objection, AND that error likely produced a result that altered the verdict or produced a result where no reliable adjudication could have taken place because of the error. Otherwise, it would likely be deemed harmless error.

I've never heard of a judge doing this before, though they often try to move things along quickly.