Einhorn Attorneys Co-Author New Jersey Law Journal Article “Common Evidence Issues in Family Part Trials (Part III): OK, the Rules Apply, but Now What?”

The New Jersey Law Journal published an article titled “Common Evidence Issues in Family Part Trials (Part III): OK, the Rules Apply, but Now What?” co-authored by Einhorn Barbarito partners Matheu D. Nunn, co-chair of the firm’s Family/Matrimonial Practice and Appellate Practice, and Matthew James Troiano, chair of the Criminal Practice, along with Einhorn Barbarito associate Jessica Sciara and attorney Alyssa S. Engleberg.

The article, published on May 22, is the third installment in a series of articles the authors have contributed to the New Jersey Law Journal. While the first two focused on the substantive evidence issues that arise in Family Part matters, such as credibility and character issues, hearsay, and judicial notice, in the third installment, the authors tackle the “in court” use of evidence rules to defend or pursue objections.

In particular, the authors discuss the usage of common objections frequently heard in courtroom proceedings. They include “badgering the witness,” “asked and answered,” and “calls for speculation.”

The authors write that while none of these objections appear verbatim in the Rules of Evidence, it does not mean they are incorrect. However, the authors add that like most evidence or trial issues, a lawyer should know the foundations of these objections, especially should they encounter a trial judge who is well-learned in the Rules of Evidence.

The full article can be read at the New Jersey Law Journal (subscription may be required).