If a judge makes the ruling to sustain, which of the following is NOT true?

When a judge makes the ruling to sustain an objection, it signifies that the judge agrees with the objection being raised, which typically means that the line of questioning or the evidence being presented is not permissible. In this context, the statement that "this information was already presented to the judge" is not true because, in sustaining the objection, the judge is essentially ruling that the information should not be considered, typically because it has not been adequately established as relevant or appropriate.

Sustaining implies that the judge views the objection as valid, suggesting that whatever information was being sought is either irrelevant or prejudicial at that moment in the proceedings. Therefore, if the objection was sustained, it can be understood that the judge has not previously accepted this line of questioning or evidence.

On the other hand, if the judge sustains an objection, it means that the objection is upheld, leading to the other choices reflecting true outcomes: an objection being withheld from consideration, the witness not being permitted to answer the questioned matters, or that permitting the witness to answer could potentially result in a mistrial. These scenarios underscore the importance of the ruling and its implications in court proceedings.