Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Exception there is a sub doctrine that is kind of an

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: of August conversations (because party-opponent exception doesn't apply when you are trying to get your own statements in) under the theory of remainder of recorded statement. District court refused to admit the transcript. Issue: Did the trial court err in not admitting the August tape under Rule 106? Holding: No. The August tape, if edited, may have aided the jury in understanding the September conversation. However, the defendant failed to lay a sufficient foundation for its admission under FRE 106. o "To lay a sufficient foundation at trial for a rule of completeness claim, the offered need only specify the portion of the testimony that is relevant to the issue at trial and that qualifies or explains portions already admitted." (KEY!) The D's counsel did not point out "what word, remark or phrase in that part of the tape which was played he would like to have explained or rebutted, or what part of the unplayed tape would be relevant or would throw light upon any word, phrase, or remark which the jury had heard." Notes: Have recordings of two conversations with Sweiss, but they only introduce one of them. Sweiss' arguing that his claim that both conversations should be included was erroneously denied....
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online