You can succeed in introducing or excluding evidence without knowing a thing about the law of evidence if the following two conditions are satisfied:

(i) The trial judge likes you.

and

(ii) The opposing party is as ignorant about the law of evidence as you are.

Illustrations:

Case 1. You offer inadmissible hearsay evidence. But you are ignorant and you do not know it is inadmissible hearsay. But -- condition (ii) -- your opponent is also ignorant and does not know your evidence is inadmissible hearsay and therefore does not say "I object: hearsay," but instead says, "I object" or "I object: not the best evidence." Since the trial judge likes you -- condition (i) --, the trial judge overrules your opponent's objection. Any subsequent attempt by your opponent to seek redress because of the trial court's ruling admitting the inadmissible hearsay evidence will fail either because (i) "a general objection overruled will not avail the objector on appeal" or (ii) a specific objection overruled will not avail an objector on appeal if the party making the specific objection identified an incorrect reason for the inadmissibility of the evidence.

Case 2. Your opponent makes an offer of evidence. The evidence violates the best evidence rule. However, since you are ignorant and do not know what is wrong with the proffered evidence, you say simply, "I object." Since your opponent is ignorant, your opponent does not know that the evidence violates the best evidence rule and, hence, your opponent cannot cure the defect in her offer by submitting evidence that is free of the best evidence rule defect. The trial judge sustains your objection. If your opponent later appeals, she will lose. This is because of the rule that a general objection sustained will be upheld on appeal if in fact the evidence was inadmissible for any reason.

Case 3. You make offer of evidence. The evidence is a prior act by the opposing party. This evidence is inadmissible if you offer it to show that the opposing party has a tendency to act negligently. However, the evidence is admissible if it is offered to show that the opposing party had knowledge of the workings of the machinery that allegedly mangled your client's hand. Your opponent is ignorant and states, "Objection, your Honor: inadmissible." The trial judge turns to you and asks, "What do you have to say?" You reply, "It's admissible, your Honor." Since the trial judge likes you, she turns to your opponent and states, "I overrule your general objection." If your opponent later appeals on the ground that an offeror has an obligation to explain the relevance and purpose of proffered evidence, she will lose. Reason: A general objection overruled will not avail the objector on appeal.

Case 4. Same as Case 2 except that you are now the party making the objection. Since your opponent is as ignorant as you are, she is unable to explain to the trial judge that the proffered evidence is admissible to show knowledge. And since the trial judge likes you (remember: you are now the objecting party), the trial judge sustains your objection. If your opponent later appeals on the ground that the trial judge excluded evidence that was admissible to show knowledge, your opponent will lose on appeal. Reason: When requested to do so by the trial judge, an offeror must explain the relevance and purpose of the proffered evidence.

A special case. In some jurisdictions there is one situation in which your ignorance can hurt you even though the trial judge likes you and even though your opponent is as ignorant as you are. If you object to inadmissible evidence on the wrong ground and the trial judge sustains your incorrect objection, your opponent can prevail on appeal in some jurisdictions if the true defect in the evidence was curable. In other jurisdictions, however, your equally-ignorant opponent has no better luck in this situation than in any other.

Query: another special case? In the jurisdictions that apply the exceptional rule in the situation just discussed does a similar exceptional rule apply when the offeror offers admissible evidence but misidentifies the purpose for which the evidence is admissible?

---