Regarding objection to cross-exams:
It's true that the defense attorney is not supposed to "testify" while asking cross questions. That is, he's not supposed to bring up stuff that has no relation to the direct exam, just to try to plant off-the-wall suggestions in the jury's mind.
However, here's what usually happens when the proponent (attorney who called the witness and did the direct exam) objects: the judge sits there for a minute, and oftentimes he will ultimately shrug and reply, "Well, it's cross-examination." This means he has overruled the proponent's objection.
Because the balancing factor is that the defendant has a constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. And so a judge is going to be hesitant to do something that might be seen as curtailing this right.
The good news is that sometimes when a defense attorney gets too suggestive or aggressive in these cross-exam questions, the witness stiffens up and takes the opportunity to add in more details--details that the defense probably doesn't want to bring up.
What I'm hearing about Catherine Crier is really starting to make me mad. She has really become a shill for the defense.
If I thought that she truly believed some of this crap she's putting out for the defense, it wouldn't be so annoying. But I believe that she is doing this in return for some sort of remuneration. Which would be way too close to prostitution. Just my opinion.
Yes but the Prosecutor usually objects because there is NO FOUNDATION that has been laid for that questioning.