I told you that offerors of evidence must make specific and informative offers.

I also told you that parties objecting to evidence must make objections that are specific and informative.

But I told you lies, lies, lies! Offers and objections have to be specific sometimes. But not always!

As a matter of fact, you can be completely ignorant of the law of evidence and still get evidence admitted or excluded -- as long as two conditions are satisfied:

(1) Your opponent is as ignorant as you are about the law of evidence.

(2) The trial judge likes you and detests the opposing lawyer(s).

For example:

Your opponent offers inadmissible hearsay evidence. But you are ignorant, ignorant, ignorant of the law of evidence. You therefore do not say, "I object. Hearsay." Instead, not having the foggiest idea of what if anything is wrong with your opponent's evidence, you say instead, "I object." Your opponent, however, is as ignorant as you are, and he, she, or it does not know that the evidence he, she, or it is proffering is hearsay and, therefore, cannot cure the hearsay defect. Now you have made only a general objection to this inadmissible hearsay evidence. But the trial judge likes you and detests your opponent. The trial judge therefore (probably) exclaims (or mutters), "Objection sustained." If your opponent assigns the trial judge's ruling as the basis for reversal on appeal, you will win -- despite your ignorance of the law of evidence. This is because the appellate court will invoke the familiar Wigmorean maxim, "If a general objection is sustained and the evidence was inadmissible for any reason, the objection [though general] will be upheld on appeal." (The rare situations in which an exception to this maxim applies are hereby ignored.)

However, now suppose that the trial judge does not like you; the trial judge likes your opponent and detests you. In that event, the trial judge is likely to say, "Objection overruled." If you lose at trial and then assign the trial judge's ruling on appeal, you will almost certainly lose. The appellate court will probably invoke the Wigmorean maxim, "A general objection overruled will not avail the objector on appeal."

Now suppose that your opponent again offers hearsay evidence. But this time your opponent offers admissible hearsay evidence. Can you keep the evidence out and win on appeal? Yes -- as long as the two conditions mentioned above are satisfied. For example, when your opponent offers the admissible hearsay, you say, naturally, "I object." The trial judge turns to your opponent and states, "What about this, counsel? You've got hearsay here." Since your opponent is ignorant, ignorant, ignorant, he, she, or it did not know that the evidence it is offering is hearsay or that it is admissible hearsay and, therefore, in response to the judge's question, he, she, or it can only say something like this, "Well, your Honor, I confess I did not know I was offering hearsay and I cannot tell why this apparent hearsay is admissible. But I stand on my rights! I offer this evidence. I am sure it is admissible. My counterpart should state the basis of his, her, or its objection." Fortunately for you, the trial judge likes you and detests your opponent, and the judge therefore tells your opponent and everyone else in the courtroom [including the court reporter], "I'm sorry, counsel. Objection sustained." If your opponent loses at trial and appeals on the ground that the trial court erroneously excluded the proffered evidence, you cannot now argue that the appeal should be rejected because the trial court sustained a general objection to inadmissible evidence. However, you will very probably still win on appeal(!) -- because the appellate court will very probably invoke and apply the familiar maxim that it is incumbent on an offeror of evidence to explain to the trial court the relevance and purpose of the evidence proffered and legal basis for the admissibility of the evidence.

However, now suppose that the trial judge detests you and likes your opponent. In that event, the trial judge will overrule your objection. If you assign the trial judge's ruling on appeal, you will lose for two reasons: (1) you made a general objection and -- as Wigmore said long ago-- "a general objection overruled will not avail the objector on appeal," and (2) the admitted evidence was in fact admissible.

So: cultivate friendships with judges and (in Texas) contribute to their re-election campaigns -- and perhaps you too can win trials without knowing much of anything about the law of evidence!

Incidentally: What conclusion do you draw about the occasional thesis that the rules requiring specificity of offers and objections are intended to ensure that all parties are seasonably informed of the reasons for the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence proffered in trials?