Argumentative

In the American legal system, argumentative is an evidentiary objection raised in response to a question which prompts a witness to draw inferences from facts of the case. In the American legal system, argumentative is an evidentiary objection raised in response to a question which prompts a witness to draw inferences from facts of the case. One common misconception is that argumentative questions are meant only to cause a witness to argue with the examiner. This error rests on misunderstanding the word 'argument'. Argument can mean 'a series of persuasive statements' (the legal sense discussed in this article) as well as 'a verbal fight or disagreement'. Thus, an argumentative objection may be raised only when the lawyer himself is making a legal argument under the guise of asking a question. 'Badgering the witness' is the proper objection for a lawyer who is antagonizing or mocking a witness by asking insulting or derisive questions, perhaps in an attempt to provoke an emotional response. A lawyer on direct examination asks his witness, a layperson with no legal training, 'So John Doe was driving negligently?' Opposing counsel could raise an argumentative objection. In this context, 'negligently' is a legal term of art with a precise and narrow meaning, and the witness cannot reasonably answer the question without understanding the relevant law. Since the lawyer is 'arguing' his case that John Doe was driving negligently through the witness, the objection would be sustained and the improper statements stricken from the record.