timely, an objection must be “made as soon as the ground of it is known, or reasonably should have been known to the objector.” United States v. Check, 582 F.2d 668, 676 (2d Cir.1978) (quoting 21 Charles Alan Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure § 5037 (1977) (quoting John Henry Wigmore, Code of Evidence 25 (3d ed.1942))). The general principle that an objection should be made after a question has been asked but before an answer has been given, Hutchinson v. Groskin, 927 F.2d 722, 725 (2d Cir.1991), is flexible in deference to the “heat of a hotly contested criminal trial,” Check, 582 F.2d at 676. Thus, the defense was not required to anticipate the government’s line of questioning in order for the objection to be timely. Compare Hutchinson, 927 F.2d at 725 (<HOLDING>), and Inge v. United States, 356 F.2d 345, 350
holding that prejudice from a question that violated doyle was cured by immediately sustaining objection before the question was answered holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection holding that objection was timely even though objection was not made until after question was answered holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court