Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

You can say this is misleading then the judge can

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: his rule of "completeness" is based on two considerations: The danger the material may be misleading by being taken out of context Inadequacy of a delayed repair Rule 106 does not apply to oral conversations that are not recorded! But the opposing party may develop the remainder of unrecorded conversations on cross-examination as part of his own case. "Ought in fairness to be considered" To meet this standard, the other writing or recording must be: relevant to the issues "necessary" to: o explain the admitted portion o place the admitted portion in context o avoid misleading the trier of fact, or o ensure a fair and impartial understanding. Example Inadmissible where government made no attempt to specify which portions of the document were relevant to the issues raised on cross-examination; did not explain why these portions were necessary! Foundation. To lay a sufficient foundation at trial for a rule of completeness claim, the offeror need only specify the portion of the evidence that is relevant to the issue at trial and that qualifies or explains portions already admitted. Texas Rule 107 (Rule of...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online