[thegagline]

Running objections are a dangerous endeavor. Objections must be timely and done with specificity. Failing to do so can lead to waiver and/or the appellate court ruling that there was error but it was harmless. To anyone who has done appellate work, harmless error is an all too often used refrain.

Also, running objections generally arise out of a line of inquiry which must contemplate both the depth and breadth of what is acceptable and what isn't. Opposing counsel will often try to push the envelope as to what falls within the constraints of the running objection. Also, in this case, the questions may be proper but the answers may not. Herein lies yet another problem with a running objection- a lay witness ( pun, noted) will be given deference in not fully understanding the running objection.

I have not read any motions in limine filed by the defense. However, if they filed a motion to exclude Daniels as a witness (prejudice vs probative value) and the judge denied the motion, defense must still timely object to her testimony.

[gloryblaze]

Have at it:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24441498-trump-hush-money-motions-in-limine