0913

Here's what I would say:

"I object to testimony about what happened to the captain. No foundation of personal knowledge has been laid to show that this witness was present on the bridge or saw what happened."

I wanted you to write out your objection to make sure you phrased it as "no foundation" rather than arguing that the witness actually lacks personal knowledge. We don't know if he had personal knowledge or not. He might have been on the bridge and seen what happened, or he might have been elsewhere and not seen it. Rule 602 specifically requires that the proponent introduce evidence sufficient to establish personal knowledge. This is called a "foundation." The opponent can simply object to the lack of this foundation and to the absence of evidence sufficient to establish personal knowledge.

Do you understand the difference? If not, e-mail me at tanford@indiana.edu and include the reference 0913

The testimony continues.

Witness: Yes, the executive officer relieved the captain of command.
Q: Do you know why the executive officer took the action he did?

What objection could the defense make? Write down your answer and then click here.