Asked and Answered

United States v. Ratcliff, 488 F.2d 639 (5th Cir. 1974)

Recognized the trial court's broad discretion to prevent repetitious questioning that wastes time without adding probative value to the proceeding.

United States v. Reyes, 227 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2000)

Affirmed that trial courts properly exercise discretion in limiting repetitive questioning under Rule 611(a) to protect witnesses from harassment and prevent needless consumption of time.

When is an "asked and answered" objection appropriate?

The objection is appropriate when an attorney asks a question that the witness has already clearly answered, and the repetition serves no legitimate purpose such as clarification. It prevents attorneys from badgering witnesses into changing their answers or from unduly emphasizing particular points through repetition.

Does asked and answered apply on cross-examination?

Courts give more latitude on cross-examination, where repetition may serve legitimate impeachment or clarification purposes. However, persistent repetition of the same question after receiving a clear answer can still be objectionable as harassment or asked-and-answered, particularly if the attorney is simply trying to wear down the witness.

Can I ask the same question in a different way?

Generally yes. Rephrasing a question to approach the subject from a different angle or to clarify an ambiguous answer is different from simply repeating the identical question. The objection targets exact repetition for no legitimate purpose, not reasonable follow-up questioning on the same topic.