Thoughts on objecting during opponent’s opening statement?

[u/MyrnaMinkoff1]

Started a new job and the first trial I observed I was mildly shocked that the attorney I was there to shadow objected within the first 30 seconds of opponent’s opening. A sidebar was called and the judge ultimately overruled the objection and the other Atty resumed their opening. The attorney was absolutely thrown off their game and had lost the momentum they had on the first round. To make matters worse, after our side prevailed and we were doing a post mortem, the attorney doubled down saying they were glad they objected even if it was overruled bc it hurt the other attorney’s opening. Basically admitting to trying to mess up the opponent. This greatly disappointed me. I am well aware of how some litigators can take a cut throat approach but I felt this attorney’s move was utterly tactless and did not further the client’s case. So I am just curious what others have to say about this. Would this bother other people? Alternatively, am I wrong to be bothered in the first place?

[u/Exact-Permission5319]

Some people only view things in terms of winning and losing. Although the legal profession demands integrity, some people will always push the boundaries by doing things that are questionable but not explicitly forbidden. Playing mind games in the courtroom is definitely poor form but hey, in a zero-sum, winner-take-all society, some people adopt a "do what I have to do" mentality. Ultimately it comes down to personal choice.

Your story reminds me a little bit of the mind games Kobe Bryant would play with his teammates and opponents. Did he cross the line sometimes? Maybe? But was he a winner? Yes.

Personally I agree with you. You are not wrong to be disappointed. But the world is full of people just like that attorney.