When an attorney asks a multi-part question, opposing counsel objects with "Objection, compound question." The judge will typically sustain the objection and instruct the attorney to break the question into separate parts. This ensures each answer corresponds clearly to a single factual question, creating a clean record for appeal and preventing witness confusion. Compound questions are particularly problematic on cross-examination where a yes-or-no answer to a two-part question may be interpreted as agreement with both parts when the witness only agrees with one. Experienced attorneys learn to ask one fact per question for clarity and effectiveness.
Attorney: "Did you see the defendant leave the building and did you follow him to his car?" Opposing Counsel: "Objection, compound." Judge: "Sustained. Please ask one question at a time."
Attorney (rephrased): "Did you see the defendant leave the building?" Witness: "Yes." Attorney: "Did you then follow him to his car?" Witness: "No."
Attorney: "Were you angry and intoxicated when you confronted the plaintiff?" Opposing Counsel: "Objection, compound question." Judge: "Sustained."
Students sometimes think any long question is compound. Length alone does not make a question compound. A compound question specifically asks about two or more separate facts requiring potentially different answers.
United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084 (3d Cir. 1990)
Recognized that compound questions create unfairness by forcing witnesses to give ambiguous answers, supporting trial courts' discretion to sustain such objections.
State v. Rosenthal, 75 Conn. App. 46 (1999)
Reversed a conviction where critical testimony was elicited through compound questions that rendered the witness's answers ambiguous on key factual issues.
What is a compound question in legal proceedings?
A compound question combines two or more separate questions into one, making it unclear which part the witness is answering. For example: "Did you go to the store and buy a gun?" conflates two facts — going to the store and purchasing a weapon — into a single question. A "yes" or "no" answer would be ambiguous.
Why are compound questions objectionable?
Compound questions are objectionable because they create ambiguous answers, confuse the record, and may mislead the jury about what the witness actually admitted. They deny the witness the opportunity to address each fact separately and can inadvertently create false admissions on the transcript.
How should an attorney rephrase a compound question?
Break the compound question into separate, discrete questions addressing one fact each. For example, instead of "Did you see the defendant and speak to him?" ask: "Did you see the defendant?" followed by "Did you speak to him?" This creates a clear record and fair opportunity for the witness to respond to each fact.
A leading question is one that suggests the desired answer within the question itself, typically ans...
An argumentative objection is raised when an attorney's question is not genuinely seeking informatio...
The "asked and answered" objection is raised when an attorney repeatedly asks the same question or s...
A witness is any person who testifies under oath in court proceedings, providing factual testimony b...
