New Location, Same Tradition: Goldstein & Orr Has Moved Offices Learn More

Client Testimonials
  • "I'm very impressed how Mrs. Orr handled everything, she is very professional and I recommend Mrs. Orr if your in need an attorney for a white collar case!!!" by Anonymous Former Client Read More
  • "The best of the best above all the rest. Accept no substitutes." by Richard R. Read More
  • "They're the best, very thorough." by Doug T. Read More
  • "I was so fortunate and privileged to have Mr. Goldstein in my corner. You will find none better." by Stephen Read More
  • "GGH has no equal in Texas or elsewhere. Cynthia Orr and Gerry Goldstein don't just defend their clients, they make law. I've watched them over the years take impossible cases and win." by Debra I. Read More


Where the prosecutor’s objection to your question or proposed testimony is sustained and the evidence excluded, Counsel must make an offer of proof setting out the substance of the evidence that was not admitted, unless same is apparent from the context within which questions were asked. FED. R. EVID. Rule 103 (a)(2.; US v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding Fifth Circuit “will not even consider the propriety of the decision to exclude evidence if no offer of proof was made at trial”); Espino v. City of Kingsville, 676 F.2d 1075 (5th Cir. 1982); US v. Cutler, 676 F.2d 1245 (9th Cir. 1982).

It has also been held that a party cannot argue new theories of the relevancy of evidence on appeal which were not presented to the trial court until post-trial motions; US v. Lara- Hernandez, 588 F.2d 272 (9th Cir. 1978). See also US v. Artega-Limones, 529 F.2d 1183 (5th Cir. 1976); US v. Sims, 617 F.2d 137 (9th Cir. 1980); US v. Pugliese, 713 F.2d 1574 (2nd Cir. 1983).

Rule 103(c) further provides that in order to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means such as making statements, offers of proof or asking questions within the hearing of the jury, that such proceedings should be conducted out of the hearing of the jury. FED. R. EVID. Rule 103(c); US v. Miller, 594 F.2d 1085 (6th Cir. 1979) (holding prosecutor should have made offer of proof outside hearing of jury before asking question as to witnesses’ “gay” relationship to physician on trial for controlled substance violation).

(210) 226-1463
  1. Attorneys
  2. Results
  3. Contact