Which term refers to an attorney stating a fact that was never brought up in testimony or evidence?

Which term refers to an attorney stating a fact that was never brought up in testimony or evidence?

• A. Arguing Facts Not In Evidence
• B. Leading Question
• C. Narrative
• D. Relevance

Answer: (A)

This tests the rule that a lawyer cannot introduce or argue facts unless those facts have been presented as evidence. When an attorney states a fact that nobody has testified to or that isn’t in the record, they’re trying to persuade the jury with stuff the evidence doesn’t support. That act is called arguing facts not in evidence. The jury is only allowed to decide based on what has been proven through testimony and exhibits, so bringing in unproved facts misleads and oversteps the record. This is different from a leading question, which suggests an answer in the question itself, or from a narrative, where the lawyer tells a story to the jury rather than sticking to questioning and evidence. Relevance deals with whether the evidence actually matters to proving a point in the case.

This tests the rule that a lawyer cannot introduce or argue facts unless those facts have been presented as evidence. When an attorney states a fact that nobody has testified to or that isn’t in the record, they’re trying to persuade the jury with stuff the evidence doesn’t support. That act is called arguing facts not in evidence. The jury is only allowed to decide based on what has been proven through testimony and exhibits, so bringing in unproved facts misleads and oversteps the record.

This is different from a leading question, which suggests an answer in the question itself, or from a narrative, where the lawyer tells a story to the jury rather than sticking to questioning and evidence. Relevance deals with whether the evidence actually matters to proving a point in the case.