F VS. S VS. G
The Dichotomy Among Lack of Foundation (F), Speculation (S), and Assumes Facts Not in Evidence (G)
The objection bases "Lack of Foundation," "Speculation," and "Assumes Facts Not in Evidence" originate from F.R.E. 602 and F.R.E. 611. Lack of Foundation (F) and Speculation (S) find their bases in F.R.E. 602, while Assumes Facts Not in Evidence finds its basis in F.R.E. 611. Often times, these objections may seem interchangeable, and in many instances, each of these objection bases will be proper. However, for most improper questions and answers, one of these objection bases is clearly better than the others. Thus, we have decided to separate the three bases each into their own objections:
- Lack of Foundation = "F"
- Speculation = "S"
- Assumes Facts Not in Evidence = "G"
Rather than grouping these objections into one single key (e.g., "F"), we decided to separate each of these objections because each objection basis is actually slightly different than the others. Therefore, such a dichotomy will serve to maximize the educational benefit of the Trial ProTM experience because it will challenge you to truly identify, understand, and apply the important nuances that distinguish F, S, and G from one other.
Another motivating factor behind the separation pertains to the user experience. By separating these three objections, the gameplay mechanics become more fun and interactive. Without these delineations, you might simply be hitting the "F" key a lot.
Here is how we are differentiating among the three objection bases:
- An objection based on Lack of Foundation indicates that it MIGHT be possible for the witness to potentially know the answer, but simply additional predicate questions need to be asked. For example: "What is the weather like today in London?" The witness might certainly know that answer (yes, it might be hearsay), but simply additional predicate questions need to be asked first (e.g., "Where were you earlier today?" Answer: "I just flew in from London.").
- An objection based on Speculation indicates that no matter how much foundation is attempted to be laid, the witness cannot possibly answer the question based on his/her personal knowledge. For example: "Is there intelligent life in the Vega star system?"
- An objection based on Assuming Facts Not in Evidence indicates that the attorney is asking a question, but there is information contained in the question that has not yet been established in this trial through this specific witness. For example: "Mr. Booth, when did you stop kicking puppies for a hobby?" If this witness has not first admitted that he, in fact, kicked puppies at one time in his life, then this question Assumes Facts Not in Evidence (and yes, it is also argumentative... and yes, who would kick a puppy?!).
Throughout Trial Pro exams and cases, many improper questions and answers will have multiple correct objection bases, especially regarding F, S, and G (e.g., F & S are both correct; F & G are both correct). However, many exams will undoubtedly contain questions and/or answers where Foundation may be lacking, but if Speculation is the better objection, objecting to the more general "Lack of Foundation" may not be rewarded as highly or may technically be marked as incorrect (e.g., if no adequate foundation could possibly be laid, for example).
We hope this note on F, S, and G makes sense. Our goal is to provide you with unparalleled levels of education, realistic courtroom simulations, and, of course, fun. Enjoy!