"Chambers, Your Honor!" (The attorney wants to discuss a legal point in the Judge's office to complete privacy for a prolonged amount of time.)
In a similar vein "In my chambers, now! Both of you!" (The sort of shenanigans that provoke this in TV Land are generally way past the Mistrial Event Horizon.)
"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" The last clause is occasionally dropped in some situations.
The United States introduced "affirming" in the 1780s to answer the objections of those whose religious convictions wouldn't let them say the "God" part or swear on The Bible. note Before this, it wouldn't be a stretch that anyone who wouldn't swear on a Bible might find themselves tied to a flaming piece of wood.
In Ayn Rand's play Night of January 16th, a judge forces Karen Andre to affirm despite her objecting as an atheist to the "so help you God" part.
The UK courts comment that "oath cards and holy books are available for several religions". You can also miss out the 'God' bit by choosing to affirm.
"Does the defendant plead guilty or not guilty?" / "How does the defendant plead?"
"Fruit of the poisonous tree": Evidence that was obtained by an illegal action by an investigator must now be considered inadmissible and must be removed from the prosecution's indictment of the client, which can mean that the defendant's arrest is now also voided and the person is free to go.
Technically, this refers to not the illegally obtained evidence itself, but to any evidence that derives from it, even if that evidence was obtained legally. If investigators find out via an illegal wire tap that the evidence is in Locker 475 at the train station, even if they then get a warrant to search that locker, whatever's inside is inadmissible.
"Habeas corpus" is (at least in the U.S.) a writ or summons that requires someone in authority holding an imprisoned person to bring that person to court to determine if they should be kept in custody or released. In Real Life this is invoked by the defense almost 100% of the time, to try to prevent a trial. It's the closest thing to a Real Life"Get Out of Jail Free" Card (if the paperwork isn't in order.)
Habeas corpus is a right of all imprisoned citizens, and designed to give them a chance of representation, so that the government cannot imprison people indefinitely. You always have the right to your day in court, no matter what anyone says. At least in the US. And as long as you're not an enemy combatant...
There are other cases as well. The US Constitution lists the circumstances under which it can be suspended, but is a bit more vague on exactly who has the power to do so. Lincoln did it during the Civil War, and to resolve the question of whether he had the right to do so or not Congress passed a law basically saying "it's okay with us."
"Has the jury reached a verdict?" ("We have, Your Honor.") ("What say you?")
"I plead/take the Fifth." This refers to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the provision that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Also heard as "I hereby invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege" or "I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me." Technically, a jury is not supposed to regard taking the Fifth in any prejudicial light, but human nature being what it is, it's impossible to make sure that they follow that. Often subverted by people yelling the incorrect amendment.
This one is rarely seen in Real Life courts, as the defendant doesn't have to testify and the prosecution is not allowed to suggest they should. However, if you do agree to testify, then you are open to all questions. Therefore, only a witness would say such a thing and it is rather rare to have a witness being asked questions that they might not need to answer. This is most often seen when answering questions in front of Congress, as they put you in the chair and have you say this just so the Congressperson can grandstand about how guilty you must be.
Or, of course, if one of the witnesses other than the defendant was a party to the crime, or committed some other crime that comes up during cross-examination. However, considering the extent of the pre-trial preparation these days, any competent lawyer (on both sides) will avoid any such question. Unless it might help the defense, but at that point the prosecution will likely avoid calling the witness (and the rules for the defense calling a witness makes it a little more difficult for them to ask such a question).
Some people apparently try to 'take the fifth' in Canada, forgetting that it's a different country. It's the "eleventh" there.
Chappelle's character: "I plead the fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiif!"
"I rest my case." (The prosecution or defense believes they have adequately presented their arguments and examined necessary witnesses. Basically, they're done.)
Note that when the prosecution rests, they still have the option of rebuttal testimony after the defense rests, so they're not really done. However, when the defense rests, they are definitively done (except for cross-examination of rebuttal witnesses, or if the judge allows surrebuttal).
"I'd like to call in a new witness." In Real Life you can't bring in an undisclosed witness, sorry. You can bring in one you disclosed but weren't able to contact until just now, with the judge's permission. (And your story had better pass the laugh test if you want that permission.)
"I'd like to mark this as Exhibit A."
"I'll allow it" (The judge has just permitted a motion by an participating attorney to go ahead)
"It's black letter law" (The legal point the attorney is making is specifically written in an earlier judgment)
"Let the record reflect/show that [something has happened which wasn't captured in the transcript, like the witness pointing at the defendant.]"
"I can no longer represent my client in this matter." (Lawyer speak for "My client specifically asked me to lie to the court.")
"May I approach the bench?". In Canada lawyers can do this without asking, but in most other Commonwealth jurisdictions you should ask if you're allowed to do that.
"Argumentative": The question or statement spoken is not establishing or examining a fact, but is spoken merely to argue with the witness or counsel.
"Hearsay" (testifying about what someone else said they saw, instead of what you saw yourself). Hearsay is allowed in certain conditions. Dying Declarations (the last words of a person who knows they're dying) are popular exceptions. Reading in pre-trial discovery testimony is a much harder prospect, but is allowed in certain cases where the witness has testified before the trial itself and is now unavailable due to unforeseeable events (death, usually).
"Prejudicial" (testimony that would cause the jury to dislike the defendant enough that they might chose to convict him, even though it doesn't really go to prove guilt. For instance, the fact that the defendant has a criminal record.) In Real Life, objecting that something was "prejudicial" would make the judge laugh and say, "of course it is, that's why he's introducing it." The objection is "the prejudicial value substantially outweighs the probative (proof) value."
"Badgering the witness" (attacking the witness in order to confuse or browbeat them)
One Dave Barry column has the lawyer using a wolverine on the witness. Since it wasn't a "badger" (another mustelid) the objection was overruled.
An issue of Sonic the Hedgehog had the lawyer (in this case Antoine), going overboard in his questioning and asking the witness (Amy Rose) about overcharging a badger in joining a fan club, leading the judge (Princess Sally) to tell him to "stop badgering the witness".
"Witness is not an expert" (Witnesses can only state facts, like what they saw. An expert witness can give opinions, like how long it was between when the victim died and when the police found them, etc.)
"The Prosecution/Defense is leading the witness" (The lawyer is asking questions in such a way that he is feeding facts to the witness or otherwise indicating what answer he wants the witness to give.) Note that during cross-examination, a certain amount of leading is allowed, on the grounds that the person testifying is not on the side of the lawyer doing the questioning, and might need some additional pointers to reach the conclusions needed. See hostile witness below.
"Relevance" (the lawyer is asking questions that have little to no bearing on the scope of the case)
"Speculation" (the lawyer is asking the witness to essentially guess about something: "What did it look like the victim did for a living?")
"The witness is not on trial here!"
"Irrelevant" or "immaterial": the question or statement has nothing to do with the case at hand.
"—or I will hold you in contempt of court." This exists in both the US and the UK. Jail time is an option in both jurisdictions, although fines and cautions are more common.
"Order in the courtroom!" The Judge says this while banging a gavel. Disruption of the order in the courtroom might result in expulsion from said room, or even being held in contempt. This is mostly American.
"Perhaps this will refresh your memory." This one's pretty much pure Hollywood. In Real Life, both sides have to disclose to each other what evidence they will be presenting (with a few very specific exceptions) before the trial. Also, a "smoking gun" is likely to lead to a plea bargain up front, saving the prosecution a lot of hassle.
"Permission to treat the witness as hostile?" Once a witness has contradicted himself or changed his testimony from pre-trial discovery, this gives the attorney the right to be more abrasive and direct in their line of questioning during direct examination, and avoid an objection for badgering the witness.
Specifically, it allows the attorney to ask leading questions. When an attorney calls a witness to present evidence for them, the witness is presumed to be friendly, and so the attorney can only ask open-ended questions. If the witness starts re-canting earlier statements or lying on the stand, this allows the lawyer who called him to force the witness to say what he needs under oath (or perjure themselves).
By definition, during a cross-examination, a witness is considered hostile (they're not on the questioning lawyer's side, after all).
"That testimony is to be stricken from the record. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury (reason why the evidence is illegal) as such you are to disregard this evidence and ignore it when conducting your deliberations." (See Disregard That Statement.)
"Withdrawn" (Said by an attorney to supposedly retract a statement before it is stricken from the record)
In most cases in Real Life, simply saying "withdrawn" isn't enough. You could be subject to penalties or fines. If you have a reputation for constantly making inflammatory statements (see Jack McCoy), you won't have any leeway at all, and you're likely to hurt your case by trying to pull this off. You'll also push yourself closer and closer to mistrial with each offense.
"Therefore, be it resolved..."
"This session is adjourned to ..."
"Witness, please answer the question." (If a witness is asked a question on the witness stand, they don't have the option of not answering. They must either answer the question or provide a reason why they can't (Fifth Amendment being popular). Simply stalling or avoiding the question can result in contempt of court or even perjury charges.)
"Would this be a convenient moment?" A British judge's way of saying "Barristers, shut your cakeholes. It's lunchtime."
"You don't have to answer that." (A judge can direct the witness not to answer if an objection to the question is sustained. The lawyers can't (and it's a punishable offense), but will try to do so anyway, at least on TV.)
"Send him down" - very British, being "sent down" means to be send to gaol. Not often heard anymore because its cartoonish, but still a useful shorthand for "this poor bastard is in deep trouble."