Lawyers in court speak in a fixed vocabulary tied to specific moments in a proceeding. If you’re wondering what lawyers say in court and why, most of it falls into a handful of categories: addressing the judge, questioning witnesses, introducing evidence, objecting, making motions, and arguing the case to the jury. Each category has its own stock phrases, and almost none of them are decorative. They exist because the rules of procedure require them.
How Lawyers Address the Judge and Each Other
Every statement directed to the bench begins with “Your Honor.” Lawyers use it when making a request, raising an objection, or responding to the judge. You’ll hear it dozens of times in a single hearing. Lawyers don’t call the judge by name, and in formal proceedings they rarely say “Judge” alone.
Before opening statements and closing arguments, lawyers typically begin with “May it please the court.” It’s a formal greeting that signals they’re about to address the jury or present argument. Courts treat it as a baseline courtesy. When speaking about or to the other attorney during proceedings, lawyers use “Counsel” rather than a name.
Jury Selection: Voir Dire
Before trial, lawyers question potential jurors in a process called voir dire. The goal is to find out who can’t be fair. Common questions include “Is there any reason you could not be fair in reaching a verdict?” and “Have you, or has someone close to you, been the victim of a crime?” Each answer helps the lawyer decide whether to keep or remove that juror.
Two tools remove a juror. A “challenge for cause” requires the lawyer to state a specific reason the juror can’t be impartial, such as a family relationship with a party or a stated inability to follow the law. The judge decides. A “peremptory challenge” requires no reason at all. The lawyer simply indicates they wish to excuse the juror. Each side gets a limited number of peremptory challenges, so lawyers spend them carefully.
Opening Statements
Once the jury is seated, each side gives an opening statement. The rule is strict: opening statements must stick to facts, not argument. A lawyer can say “The evidence will show that the defendant was not home that evening,” but cannot argue what the jury should conclude from that fact. Expect phrases like “Witness A will testify that…” or “You will hear evidence showing…” rather than persuasion.1U.S. Courts. Differences Between Opening Statements and Closing Arguments
Opening statements also introduce the people involved and frame the dispute. A plaintiff’s lawyer might say “This case is about a company that knew its product was defective and sold it anyway.” A defense lawyer might answer with “When you hear all the evidence, you’ll see my client acted reasonably at every step.” Neither side is arguing yet. They’re drawing a map the jury can follow.
Questioning Witnesses
Direct Examination
When lawyers call their own witness, that questioning is called direct examination. Questions are open-ended: “What happened next?” or “What did you see when you arrived?” Leading questions, which suggest the answer, are generally not allowed on direct.2Cornell Law School / Legal Information Institute (LII). Direct Examination
The lawyer’s job on direct is to stay out of the way. The witness is the storyteller. Lawyers guide with short prompts: “Can you describe the intersection?” or “Did there come a time when you spoke to the defendant?” When finished, the lawyer says “No further questions, Your Honor.”
Cross-Examination
Cross-examination flips the dynamic. The opposing lawyer questions the witness, and leading questions are not only allowed but expected. Instead of “What happened next?” a cross-examiner asks “You didn’t actually see the accident, did you?” or “Isn’t it true that you waited three weeks before reporting this?” The questions are built to control the witness, lock them into short answers, and expose weak points.2Cornell Law School / Legal Information Institute (LII). Direct Examination
Cross-examination is limited to topics raised on direct. A lawyer can’t use cross to introduce entirely new subject matter. When finished, the lawyer again says “No further questions.”
Redirect and Recross
After cross, the lawyer who called the witness gets a second turn, called redirect examination. Redirect is for cleaning up damage done on cross. If the opposing lawyer forced a misleading yes-or-no, redirect lets the witness explain. The scope is limited to what came up during cross.
If redirect raises something new, the opposing lawyer may conduct recross. Recross is typically brief and narrowly focused on whatever new information surfaced. Judges keep a tight leash on this phase so the questioning doesn’t loop.
Getting Exhibits Into Evidence
Admitting a document, photograph, or object follows a specific verbal sequence. First, the lawyer asks the court to mark the item for identification: “I request that this be marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 for identification.” The clerk assigns the number. At this point the exhibit exists in the record but isn’t evidence yet.
Next, the lawyer must “lay a foundation,” meaning establish through witness testimony that the exhibit is what the lawyer claims. For a photograph: “Do you recognize what’s depicted in this photograph?” and “Does it accurately show the intersection as it appeared that day?” For a document, the lawyer might ask the witness to identify a signature or confirm receipt of a letter. Each type of evidence has its own foundation requirements.
Once the foundation is laid, the lawyer formally offers the exhibit: “Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 for identification is offered into evidence.” The opposing lawyer may object. If no objection is raised, or if the judge overrules one, the exhibit is admitted. Skipping the formal offer is a rookie mistake that can keep the jury from ever seeing the item.
Objections
Objections are how lawyers enforce the rules of evidence in real time. When a lawyer believes a question or piece of evidence violates procedure, they stand and say “Objection, Your Honor,” followed by the specific ground. The judge rules immediately: “sustained” blocks the question or evidence, “overruled” lets things proceed.3Legal Information Institute (LII). Objection
The common grounds are:
- Relevance. The question or evidence has nothing to do with the issues in the case.
- Hearsay. A witness is repeating what someone else said outside court, offered to prove the statement is true. Hearsay is generally inadmissible.4Cornell Law School / Legal Information Institute (LII). Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 802 – The Rule Against Hearsay
- Leading. The lawyer is suggesting the answer to their own witness during direct, which isn’t allowed.
- Speculation. The question asks the witness to guess rather than testify to what they actually know.
- Lack of foundation. The lawyer hasn’t shown the witness has personal knowledge, or hasn’t authenticated an exhibit.
- Asked and answered. The question has already been posed and responded to.
If a witness blurts out something inadmissible before an objection can be raised, the lawyer may ask the judge to instruct the jury to disregard the answer.3Legal Information Institute (LII). Objection
Motions and Requests During Trial
Motion to Strike
A motion to strike asks the judge to remove something from the official record, typically when a witness gives an unresponsive or inadmissible answer. The lawyer says “I move to strike the witness’s last answer” or “Motion to strike, Your Honor.” If granted, the testimony is removed and the jury is instructed to disregard it.5LII / Legal Information Institute. Motion to Strike
Sidebar Conferences
When lawyers need to raise something with the judge outside the jury’s hearing, they request a sidebar. The standard phrase is “May we approach?” or “May we see you at sidebar, Your Honor?” The judge, both lawyers, and sometimes the court reporter gather at the side of the bench and speak quietly. These conversations handle evidence disputes and procedural issues that could prejudice the jury if discussed openly.
Motions in Limine
Before trial, lawyers often file motions in limine, which are requests to exclude specific evidence from the entire proceeding. A defense lawyer might ask the court to keep the prosecution from mentioning a prior arrest. A plaintiff’s lawyer might try to block graphic photographs. Winning a motion in limine means the other side can’t even reference the excluded evidence in front of the jury.
Closing Arguments
Closing arguments are where the “no arguing” restriction from openings falls away. After all evidence is in, lawyers finally get to tell the jury what it all means. Expect phrases like “The evidence has shown…” and “Based on the testimony you heard from…” as lawyers tie facts to the legal standards the judge will instruct the jury to apply.1U.S. Courts. Differences Between Opening Statements and Closing Arguments
A plaintiff’s lawyer in a negligence case might say “You heard three witnesses testify that the defendant ran that red light. That is negligence, plain and simple.” A defense attorney might point to gaps: “Not a single witness could say for certain what color the light was.” Closing is the last thing in the jury’s ears before deliberation.
Pleas, Sentencing, and Allocution
Not every court appearance is a trial. At an arraignment, the judge reads the charges and asks the defendant to enter a plea. The defense lawyer typically responds with “My client pleads not guilty, Your Honor.” If a plea deal is later reached, the defendant may enter a plea of guilty or no contest.
At sentencing, the language shifts to advocacy. Defense lawyers present mitigating factors: “We ask the court to consider that my client has no prior criminal history and has taken full responsibility.” Prosecutors argue the other way, emphasizing the severity of the offense and its impact on victims. Many courts also allow the defendant to speak directly to the judge, a process called allocution, where they can express remorse or ask for leniency in their own words.
Phrases Television Gets Wrong
A few courtroom phrases are famous mostly because of television. “I rest my case” is real, but it just means the lawyer has finished presenting evidence. “Let the record reflect…” is used to note something the written transcript wouldn’t capture, like a witness pointing at the defendant. “I plead the Fifth” refers to a witness invoking the constitutional right against self-incrimination, though lawyers typically phrase it more formally: “My client invokes their Fifth Amendment privilege and declines to answer.”
“I object” is accurate but incomplete. Judges expect the specific ground attached, and a bare objection often gets a curt “On what basis, Counsel?” in response. “Permission to treat the witness as hostile” is also a real request, used to get permission to ask leading questions of your own witness when that witness becomes uncooperative or evasive during direct examination.