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
Attorney Michael Komorn Lectures Students at the U of M Law School
I wanted to give a huge thanks to University of Michigan Law School Professors Howard Bromberg, Mark Osbeck and Law School class. This past Thursday I had the honor of being asked to speak about my favorite topics, the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act and the practice...
Jury Selection In Marihuana Cases
A jury trial is fundamental to our democratic system of government. Every American citizen should embrace this responsibility by participating, and ensure justice prevails. by Michael Komorn I just picked a jury in a marihuana case, there were several perspective...
Planet Green Trees Radio Episode 149-MSC People v. Koon
The best resource for everything related to Michigan medical marijuana with your host Attorney Michael Komorn. Live every Thursday evening from 8 -10 pm eastern time. By Michael Komorn The Michigan Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion making a finding that...
Polygraphs Proven Unreliable, Used for Police Intimidation
Polygraphs are widely recognized as unreliable yet police still use them to elicit confessions. By Michael Komorn Many states don’t allow polygraph test to be admitted in court because they are unreliable. Their lack of reliability is widely recognized by criminal...
Arrests for DUI’s on the Rise
By Michael Komorn Arrests for DUI’s have been on the rise across Michigan. This trend could drastically increase as The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has called on state authorities to reduce the legal limit to 0.05 percent. Currently, all 50 U.S. states...
US District Court Judge rules police cannot enter a car without a warrant to facilitate a drug dog sniff
Federal Judge Applies GPS Ruling To Drug Dog Traffic Stop By Michael Komorn Last week, a judge with the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia applied the precedent to the common police practice of “permeation” where a police officer enters a...
Drug Checkpoints: Unconstitutional
By Michael Komorn The Supreme Court ruled in City of Indianapolis V. Edmund that drug check points are unconstitutional. So what happens when you see one on the highway? Keep calm and carry on. Police, especially in the Mid-west, have been using drug check points as a...
Knowing When to Exercise Your Rights
Remember, even if you are doing nothing wrong, there are a number of different outcomes that can occur from a police encounter. The short list includes: 1) No action, no problems; 2) A warning or citation; 3) An arrest and/or criminal charges. Exercising your rights...
Why Police Lie Under Oath
Thousands of people plead guilty to crimes every year in the United States because they know that the odds of a jury’s believing their word over a police officer’s are slim to none. As a juror, whom are you likely to believe: the alleged criminal in an orange jumpsuit...
What Did I Just Get Charged With?
Below is a list of common drug offenses as defined by the State of Michigan. If it is your second offense, it is important you read statute 333.7413 below. 333.7413 Conviction of second or subsequent violation; penalty....
