Understanding the Rule of Completeness in Michigan Courts: MRE 106
In the pursuit of truth and ensuring fairness during legal proceedings, the Michigan Rules of Evidence (MRE) play a crucial role.
One particular rule, MRE 106 (Completeness), safeguards against misleading interpretations and fosters a more comprehensive understanding of presented evidence.
What is the Rule of Completeness?
MRE 106 states: “If a party introduces part of a writing or recorded statement, any other party may introduce the remainder, or so much thereof as is relevant to the portion introduced, if the remainder or portion thereof offered completes the statement or renders it more understandable.”
In simpler terms, when a portion of a written or recorded statement is presented in court, the opposing party has the right to introduce the remaining relevant parts of the statement.
This ensures that the jury or judge hears the full context and avoids being swayed by a potentially misleading snippet of evidence.
Why is the Rule of Completeness Important?
Imagine a scenario where the prosecution presents a written excerpt from a witness’s statement, highlighting a specific sentence that seemingly incriminates the defendant. Without the complete statement, the jury might be left with an incomplete picture, potentially overlooking crucial contextual details or even contradictory information that could exonerate the defendant.
MRE 106 prevents such scenarios by allowing the defense to introduce the remaining relevant parts of the statement. This ensures that:
- The jury has access to a more complete picture and can make a well-informed decision based on all relevant information.
- Misleading interpretations are minimized as the opposing party can present the full context of the statement.
- Fairness is upheld by allowing both sides to present a complete picture of their case.
It’s important to note:
- The opposing party can only introduce relevant portions of the statement, not everything. The court will determine what constitutes relevant information based on the specific case and the previously introduced portion.
- MRE 106 only applies to written or recorded statements, not oral statements.
Conclusion
MRE 106 plays a vital role in ensuring fairness and promoting a complete understanding of evidence in Michigan courts. By allowing the introduction of relevant, contextual information, the rule helps prevent misleading interpretations and fosters a more just legal process.
Related Articles
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
More Posts
Father fighting to use medical marijuana concentrates
April 23, 2015 - In Western Michigan yet another Michigan Medical Marijuana patient is fighting for his freedom in a system of confusing laws. He is also fighting for the right to see his child all while the State of Michigan possibly destroys his family and...
Prosecutors drop marijuana charges against Michigan mom
Aug 5, 2015 - After a year long battle, Michigan Attorney Michael Komorn and his staff have chalked up another positive conclusion for a client caught up in the medical marijuana and forfeiture debacle. Some may consider it a win, but this slow ruination of a family...
Security Systems – You should have one!!
For most... a security video system is a tool to protect themselves from liability, false accusations and identify activities around their home or business. For some, such as thieves, those who make false accusations and liars...it works against them. There...
What’s required of you in a Michigan traffic stop?
July 24, 2015 Dashcam video released this week from a traffic stop shows how a confrontation between a Texas woman and the arresting officer escalated. Given the circumstances in the aforementioned Sandra Bland case, we wanted to find out what is allowed and not...
Detroit police make arrests at marijuana dispensary
The Detroit police raided and made arrests at marijuana dispensary in an article in the Detroit Free Press from July 14, 2015. Detroit police arrested two people and confiscated two firearms and drugs during a raid on a marijuana dispensary Tuesday afternoon. Police...
Michigan Medical Marihuana Patient Bill of Rights
On November 8th, 2008, by a majority of 63 percent, the citizens of the State of Michigan voted into law the constitutional initiative, Initiated Law 1 of 2008, ratified into law December 4, 2008, herein referred to as the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26421...
Colorado Supreme Court: Employers can fire for off-duty pot use
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday Jun 15, 2015, that Employers’ zero-tolerance drug policies trump Colorado’s medical marijuana laws. In a 6-0 decision, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed lower court rulings that businesses can fire employees for the use...
How a sex toy put spotlight on Michigan civil asset forfeiture laws targeted for reform
The headlines read... "How a sex toy put national spotlight on Michigan civil asset forfeiture laws targeted for reform" "State Legislators Reconsider Forfeiture Laws That Turn Cops Into Robbers" "Why Take My Vibrator?" Cops Legally Rob "every Belonging"...
Reform Today’s Forfeiture Laws
Everyday, I get calls to my office from medical marijuana patients and caregivers who have been raided or pulled over by police. Often times, these individuals are not arrested, and little if any paperwork is left behind by the various Narcotics Enforcement Teams....
KOMORN LAW NEWSLETTER ISSUE #1 May 2015
The Michigan Legal Advisor News Letters. Read the current newsletter from Michigan's #1 Medical Marijuana Defense Attorney Michael Komorn. KOMORN LAW NEWSLETTER ISSUE #1 May 2015 Michael Komorn is recognized as a leading expert on the Michigan Medical...
