This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: is one thing to present a misleading fragment that's when 106 kicks in, it's another thing to present part of a conversation that is not misleading....parties can bring in the other portion but have to wait their turn) Making the 106 objection just to mess with the other side's presentation 106 If it's a writing and the party objects the judge can look at the writing and then rule, is this a proper objection or do you have to just wait your turn and bring in the rest of the evidence under 107 But if it's not a writing, the judge can't do that...so 107 only gives you the option to introduce the evidence, but you have to WAIT your turn! But 106 gives you the opportunity to stem the misleading, to nip it in the bud. OH! Key! o In Texas you can nip in the bud w/ respect to all evidence- can object timely, don't have to wait your turn o In Federal rules you can nip in the bud only w/ respect to writings or recorded statements UNITED STATES v. SWEISS [Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements]
Facts: Moses owned a grocery store. Was convicted of conspiring to destroy a competing grocery store Butcher at Moses' store asked a customer to torch the one stop supermarket. Customer contacted the police who got the butcher to wear a hidden recording device and record conversations with Moses. (some in August, some in September). Procedural Posture: Gov. introduced transcript of September conversations (party-opponent hearsay exception) D tried to get in transcript...
View Full Document