I'm a little fuzzy on court procedure, but I thought if one side takes exception to the "relevance" of a line of questioning, they make an OBJECTION, and the judge rules for, or against the objection. Since when do lawyers challenged the relevance of the opposing side's questions with more questions DURING CROSS-X?
After the debacle the other day where they unsuccessfully objected to a witness reading the letter they personally wrote to the newspaper, because it was "hearsay," I'm beginning to wonder about the competence of the Dover School Board's legal counsel.
I think you'd really need to be there to know what's going on. These press reports aren't entirely reliable. However, assuming it really happened as the story says, I could guess that he did object, originally, and it was overruled. Now he's still trying to show that his earlier objection was well-founded, in the hope that he could then argue to the judge -- who is the sole trier of facts -- that he should disregard the irrelevant testimony. But if that's what's going on, it seems like he's beating a dead horse. I can't tell; it's hard to know from these press accounts.